Sustainability 12 07722 v2

sustainability
Review
Managing Corporate Sustainability and
Responsibility Efficiently: A Review of Existing
Literature on Business Groups and Networks
Olena Liakh * and Francesca Spigarelli
Department of Law, University of Macerata, Piaggia della Libertà, 2, 62100 Macerata, Italy; spigarelli@unimc.it
* Correspondence: o.liakh@unimc.it

Received: 30 July 2020; Accepted: 15 September 2020; Published: 18 September 2020
Abstract: Given the global relevance of business groups (BG) and networks as efficient organizational
forms for corporate sustainability and responsibility systems (CSR), and seeing that management
control systems (MCS) play a pivotal role in transmitting authority to CSR and formalizing
a sustainability organizational culture, this paper aims to review the available literature in
order to investigate efficient adoptions of CSR by BGs or networks. Both organizational forms
have positive effects on CSR development, on three levels: (a) setting industry standards
(macro—external environment); (b) stimulating sustainability-oriented innovations (mezzo—member
firms); (c) reputational gains, CSR expenses mitigation, and optimization of organizational capabilities
(micro—individual SMEs). The studies on SMEs were useful in identifying current sustainability
practices: both partial (social, environmental) and complete sustainability systems were susceptible
to being integrated with management accounting, making them an almost implicit tool for proper
CSR. Finally, by gathering the empirical literature on sustainability transitions of networks and
groups, it was possible to trace a comprehensive introductory plan that operators could resort to
for initial guidance. The six steps of this process are (1) project initiation, (2) preliminary actions,
(3) change management decision, (4) firm-level activities, (5) auditing, (6) transition to territorial
social responsibility (optional).
Keywords: CSR; business group; SME network; management control system; sustainability
1. Introduction
Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) provide a significant contribution to the development
of the world economy, in terms of employment creation, innovation, and industrialization [1]. On the
downside, cumulatively, SMEs are also responsible for around 60–70% of the global industrial
pollution [2], which in turn negatively shapes public opinion. In order not to undermine their
established relationships of trust with stakeholders and consumers alike, SMEs have been increasingly
integrating corporate social responsibility, accountability and sustainability practices into their corporate
strategies. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important global concept that can be defined
by the values it seeks to protect, such as decent working conditions and labor standards, human
rights, environment protection, transparency and corruption. However, instead of using it as a passive
reactive strategy, it would yield much greater results once built inside a company’s core strategy, so that
it can become a value creation driver [3].
However, the most successful SMEs at exploiting all the potential that CSR has to offer are those
that coordinate their actions under a single economic entity. Global value chains and collaborative
networks are an example of firm aggregations, exerting enormous influence on the community [3].
Networks, in fact, have already made several contributions towards the achievement of Sustainable
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7722; doi:10.3390/su12187722 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7722 2 of 42
Development Goals (SDG), while trying innovative approaches to do so on the way [4]. Business groups
(BG) are another aggregation of firms, and they seem to be a particularly interesting configuration
for SMEs to take into consideration. Firstly, they have a dominant influence on the global market.
Secondly, they can efficiently allocate internal resources among affiliates [5], therefore leading to
several advantages for minor companies. Additionally, groups are real champions at implementing
sustainability activities [6].
The present paper, therefore, enquires about the drivers (characteristics, processes, tools) that
define the successful application of CSR strategies by SMEs in cooperative relationships, particularly
in the form of BGs and networks, given that some case studies have shown that the uptake of CSR
initiatives have been largely supported by formal and informal controls systems [7]. Considering
the potential that management control systems (MCS) have in contributing to SDGs [8], it is worth
including them as a system requirement.
In order to accomplish the above objective, we conducted a systematic literature review, with
three levels of in-depth analysis linked to: (a) overall correlation between CSR and firm aggregations
(mezo-interfirm focus); (b) CSR-related tools used within SMEs (micro-SME focus); (c) implementation
of CSR systems in aggregated forms of SMEs (mezo-interfirm focus). The shift in focus was intentional,
as it allowed us to find a more accurate answer to the research question. By generally assessing
that the CSR of BG/network structures had a positive effect on SME performance, it was then safe to
proceed with a more in-depth evaluation of the specific CSR-MCS systems that helped SMEs with their
sustainability operations. Since those tools were suitable for SMEs, they could certainly be generalized
to the overall group/network they are part of. However, in order to allow for a CSR transition within
an aggregation of companies, a unitary strategic direction is required. Therefore, in the final part of the
paper, a possible strategy to connect all member firms to a unitary sustainability system is presented.
The literature review has included n. 48 papers (2007–2020) for the descriptive analysis, 33 of
which were further evaluated in terms of their content.
The remaining article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the conceptual background
explaining all terms and important concepts used relating to CSR, types of organizations, and
interconnection between CSR and MCS. The third section begins by explaining the methodology
used for the literature review, and then carries on with the quantitative analysis. Section 4 is entirely
dedicated to the content evaluation of the papers included. Results are then discussed in Section 5,
while Section 6 provides some brief conclusions.
2. Conceptual Background
In this paragraph, we define the conceptual background for the analysis. Before starting, a note
on terminology is necessary: the conceptual background explains the concepts of CSR 1.0 and CSR
2.0 to refer to corporate responsibility and then sustainability and responsibility. For simplicity, once
these concepts have been defined, the definition of CSR 2.0 will be implied whenever referring to
CSR. Additionally, for the scope of this study, CSR and corporate sustainability (CS) will be used as
synonymous terms, and so will MCS and management accounting and control (MAC).
2.1. The Link between Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals and Corporate Social Responsibility
The term sustainability is most commonly defined in the literature as a way of living and working
that allows the global population to meet their current needs of economic security, health and general
realization, without compromising resources for generations to come [9–12].
These resources encompass the planet, people and profits, which in turn pertain to the ‘three pillars’
of sustainability, also known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL): environmental, economic, and social.
The ultimate goal would be to balance the trade-off between these interrelated and equally desirable
objectives [13,14].
The concept of sustainable development (SD) expands the above idea even further. The latter
is regarded as an evolutionary process towards a more responsible society. Its focus is on political
dimensions, more than the economic growth per se, which is deemed sustainable only if it explicitly
ensures social equity and environmental protection [12,15–17].
An important step in this direction was taken in 2015, when all United Nations (UN) member
States agreed upon seventeen SDGs, to be delivered by 2030 as part of a 15-year plan aimed at reducing
inequalities, preserving the environment and promoting global economic and social prosperity [18].
The commitment taken by governments alone, however, would not be sufficient for the successful
outcome of the Agenda. Given the multiplier effects generated by companies on employment,
income creation, technological development, and especially their influence on the global scale,
they became increasingly acknowledged as crucial players in establishing a pragmatic path to
sustainable growth [19–21].
Form a normative perspective, despite no uniform legal framework being developed in this sense,
certain types of organizations were still compelled to accelerate the adoption of sustainability practices
due to regulatory pressures [22].
With reference to corporate transitions, these are usually carried out by implementing either
Corporate Sustainability (CS) or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR 1.0, or simply CSR) initiatives.
Both these notions converge on the fact that they are voluntarily adopted by firms, by harmoniously
incorporating the TBL within their business model as a way of creating shared value for society,
including ecological benefits. CS seems to be a more comprehensive approach than CSR, in that it
directly applies SD at the micro corporate level (unlike sustainability’s macro viewpoint), by especially
focusing on long-run environmental, social and financial performances. The TBL, under CS, is therefore
embedded at the very core of the corporate strategy, going beyond immediate responsibility [19].
As for CSR, despite the heterogeneity of definitions, it may be generally considered a moral
commitment assumed by an organization, not strictly limited to minimum legal compliance nor at
times even its direct activities, to meet the needs of its present and future stakeholders alike (operating
in a responsible way towards them), while continuously improving society’s overall quality of life.
This results in the short-term implementation of management practices that are based on broader CS
strategies [19,23,24].
Although, at their minimum (law and social responsibility only with a short-term focus, where
CSR , CS), CSR activities are not sufficient for enabling companies to have a significant impact on
sustainability, they are quite widespread in practice and have the potential to become the ultimate goal
for corporations (long-term TBL focus, where CSR = CS), when properly developed [19].
This last evolutionary stage may be referred to as CSR 2.0, also known as Corporate Sustainability
and Responsibility (maintaining the original acronym of CSR), so as to combine, in a complementary
way, both the environmental (‘sustainability’, thus vision) and social (‘responsibility’, thus management)
‘DNA strands’ of CSR and CS (CSR1.0 + CS = CSR2.0) [24–26].
When shifting to sustainability, it is indeed easier for companies to start with the basic structure
of CSR, and then gradually add more sustainable practices along the learning-curve over time.
Consequently, businesses adopting the CSR 1.0 model only have already taken a first step towards
embedding the essence of SD into their business strategies [27].
From this perspective, when a company seeks to transition towards encompassing sustainability
concerns at the core of its corporate values, SDGs may serve as drivers for transforming CSR 1.0 into an
even more progressive business model, one that would not only balance economic profits with genuine
environmental and social sustainability within a 17-bottom-line framework (moving away from the
limited TBL), but also make companies a decisive part of legal and political decision-making [28].
Figure 1 illustrates the interrelation between macro-level sustainability aims and micro-level CSR
actions at corporate level.
The SDGs is, on the whole, a response to the need for a CSR engagement framework. It guides
companies through the process of mapping their CSR activities, measuring the related impacts, reviving
corporate growth and innovation, and contributing to SD across the value chain [29].
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 44
From
From anan empirical
empirical point
point of
of view,
view, aa 2017
2017 survey
survey showed
showed that
that there
there is
is in
in fact
fact aa growing
growing trend
trend of
of
SDGs shaping CSR activities, as about 40% of the CSR reports that were analyzed incorporated
SDGs shaping CSR activities, as about 40% of the CSR reports that were analyzed incorporated SDGs SDGs
only
only two
two years
years after
after their
theirlaunch
launch[30].
[30].
From
From a practical point of view, SDGs
a practical point of view, SDGs provide
provide the
the SDG
SDG Compass for sustainability management.
This
This tool encourages companies to align their objectives with
tool encourages companies to align their objectives with the
the SDGs,
SDGs, embedding
embedding them them across
across all
all
corporate
corporate functions
functions and
and communication.
communication. The Compass also allows them to measure and and report
report on
on
sustainability
sustainability performance
performance to tostakeholders
stakeholdersusing
usingcommon
commonindicators
indicatorsand
andshared
sharedgoals goals[21].
[21].
Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The relationship
relationship between
between sustainability,
sustainability, sustainable
sustainable development,
development, corporate
corporate systems
systems (CS),
(CS),
corporate
corporate social
social responsibility
responsibility (CSR)
(CSR)and
andsustainable
sustainabledevelopment
developmentgoals
goals(SDGs).
(SDGs).Source:
Source: author’s
author’s
representation
representationadapted
adaptedfrom
from[12,19,24–26].
[12,19,24–26].
2.2.
2.2. Considering
Consideringthe
thePotential
PotentialImpact
Impacto oSmall
Smalland
andMedium-Sized
Medium-SizedBusiness
BusinessGroups on on
Groups Sustainable Development
Sustainable
Development
According to the literature, during transitional phases (e.g., internationalization, adoption of
environmental
Accordingpractices), SMEs often
to the literature, lacktransitional
during the necessary resources,
phases scale and benefits-awareness
(e.g., internationalization, adoption toof
access
environmental practices), SMEs often lack the necessary resources, scale and benefits-awarenessfor
international markets. For this reason, joining a network becomes the most viable solution to
them,
accessininternational
order to upgrade their
markets. capacity
For [31,32].
this reason, joining a network becomes the most viable solution for
them, Networks
in order to(e.g., globaltheir
upgrade valuecapacity
chains, [31,32].
industrial clusters) are an organizational form providing a
stableNetworks
relationship(e.g., global value chains, industrialwhile
among participating companies, maintaining
clusters) their respective
are an organizational legalproviding
form autonomya
when entering into contracts with other entities on the market.
stable relationship among participating companies, while maintaining their respective BGs are a particular type of legal
firm
network,
autonomydefined as a collection
when entering of legally
into contracts withindependent companies
other entities whichBGs
on the market. operate
are aunder common
particular type
ownership, administrative and financial control [33] through either
of firm network, defined as a collection of legally independent companies which operate formal (e.g., equity) or informal
under
(e.g.,
commonfamily) ties [32], administrative
ownership, often in multiple andstrategic
financialand unrelated
control [33] sectors
through[31,34].
either formal (e.g., equity) or
Within the context of SME group relationships, BGs
informal (e.g., family) ties [32], often in multiple strategic and unrelated are considered a mediation
sectors [31,34]. mechanism.
Affiliates mutually benefit from reduced transaction costs and the
Within the context of SME group relationships, BGs are considered a mediation sharing of both risks and superior
mechanism.
resource
Affiliatesbundles
mutuallyamong
benefitthemselves
from reduced (financial resources,
transaction costs andhuman capital,ofadvanced
the sharing both riskstechnologies,
and superior
intangible resources such as R&D and advertising), but their allocation is
resource bundles among themselves (financial resources, human capital, advanced technologies,not constrained and is up to
each SME’s individual strategy [31]. This stimulates the exchange, among affiliates,
intangible resources such as R&D and advertising), but their allocation is not constrained and is up of knowledge of
to each SME’s individual strategy [31]. This stimulates the exchange, among affiliates, of knowledge
clients, industries, and the foreign market, leading to the achievement of competitive performance
levels and new opportunities in disparate industries on global markets [31,32,34,35].
BG membership additionally provides a key informational advantage, namely positive referral
(or promotion effect) from sister affiliates to prospective clients and investors, concerning the reputation,
trustworthiness and reliability of member SMEs. This decreases the cost and facilitates the task of
matching news suppliers to their respective clients [32,34].
BG structures can also increase the environmental innovation level (development of new technology
for pollution reduction or recycling) and labor productivity of its SMEs, by suitably allocating
labor resources within the group and providing an internal learning network to its member firms,
for exchanging innovative ideas, technologies and know-how [32].
Moreover, enterprises forming BGs significantly improve their accounting and stock market values.
In particular, when institutions fail to support labor, production and financial capital, which results in
high transition costs, BG configurations are able to internalize labor, capital and product markets, thus
partially offsetting these institutional voids [35].
All in all, due to their adaptive nature and remarkable effectiveness on marketplace variables, BGs
are capable of stimulating a country’s economic and social development, even under weak institutional
contexts [31,32]. The Indian Tata Group, for instance, launched their mini truck with the aim of
overcoming the challenge of driving on poorly constructed roads [36]. Groups of SMEs would normally
produce an even greater effect, due to their flexible structures, quick decision-making processes and
unique know-how in specific areas [37]. There are numerous examples of SME groups getting awarded
with a grant for their highly innovative and impactful R&D projects (Fibertech Group, Proxigroup,
InnovativeHealth Group, etc.) [38]. All this considered, along with the fact that SMEs have been
increasingly focusing on environmental and other CSR activities to meet their stakeholders’ needs and
gain a further competitive advantage [32], it is easy to come to the conclusion that groups of SMEs
could potentially provide an even greater impact on sustainability.
The above points can be grouped into three types of advantages each organizational configuration
provides to the other, within the context of small and medium-sized groups (Table 1): structural,
informational, focus on sustainability.
Table 1. Mutual advantages provided by business groups (BGs) and small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) in small and medium-sized groups: (1) structural, (2) informational, (3) sustainability.
BG’s Advantages for SMEs SMEs Advantages for BGs

(a) Access to superior resource bundles
and capacity
(b) Single company risks are spread across
the group
(c) Stability of relationships over time (a) Organizational flexibility
1. Structural (b) Quick decision-making
(d) Contractual and resource-allocating
autonomy belong to each individual firm
(e) Resistance to market barriers and high
transaction costs caused by
institutional voids
(a) Knowledge exchange on clients,
industries and markets • Unique know-how in
2. Informational specific industries
(b) Positive referral of member SMEs to
clients of other affiliates
• Enhanced environmental innovation level • Increased focus on gaining a
3. Sustainability through effective allocation of competitive advantage
labor productivity through CSR
2.3. Management Control Systems for Sustainability

Contributions to SD at micro-levels can only be efficient when enterprises start making tangible
efforts towards sustainability. Commonly, only partial aspects of SD are addressed at organizational
level, with environmental responsibility and innovation being the most chosen route, while social
actions are often disregarded [22].
Environmental innovation strategies alone, however, are not a guarantee for the achievement
of successful financial and sustainability outcomes [39]. In this sense, research suggests that only if
enterprises align their sustainability and innovation strategies with internal controls, will they be able
to gain performance improvements and make noticeable progress towards SD [22,39].
From a theoretical point of view, internal controls, or MCS, are a set of formal and informal
practices that are used to manage patterns in organizational activities, building upon an organization’s
information system (e.g., data queries, computations, functions, modeling, reporting). Formal controls
include planning and goal-setting, budgeting, market share and outcome monitoring, and behavior
controls through explicit measures and written rules (e.g., performance appraisal, reward criteria,
code of ethics) [40–43]. Conversely, informal controls consist of traditions, attitudes, knowledge,
beliefs and shared values that moderate individual behaviors within a firm, thus shaping corporate
culture [40,42,44].
MCSs support the effective implementation of corporate strategy (competitive positioning),
strengthen transparency and accountability towards stakeholders, ethical decision-making and
management of environmental opportunities and threats [39]. MCSs are based on four different
formal levers that operate in tandem, called levers of control (LOC): (i) belief (core values), (ii) boundary
(risks to avoid), (iii) diagnostic (critical performance variables), and (iv) interactive control systems
(strategic uncertainties). Belief and interactive controls are enabling forces (motivational), while the
other two constructs are used for controlling purposes (ensuring compliance) [43]. In particular,
enabling levers of MCS foster a positive impact of environmental innovation strategy on sustainability
performance, whereas controlling MCS levers negatively mediate this relation [39].
Each of the above levers can help managers to reinforce their company’s CSR (Figure 2). Through
belief systems, firms are able to mobilize their employees’ ideas (through mission statements, workshops,
training sessions, etc.) in order to strengthen CSR values, while increasing their commitment to a
shared vision.
Figure
Figure 2. Management Control
2. Management Control Systems
Systems for
for Corporate
Corporate Sustainability
Sustainability and
and Responsibility.
Responsibility. Source:
Source:
author’s representation adapted from [42].
author’s representation adapted from [42].
3. Methodology
The systematic literature review was developed in four stages: (i) choice of keywords and
inclusion criteria, (ii) search strategy, (iii) study screening and selection, (iv) extraction and synthesis
of sources. Each step is described in detail below.
Boundary systems draw on a set of tools directed towards internal and external stakeholders
(employees, supply chain, customers, environment, communities), including codes of ethics and
conduct, guidelines, quality certifications and labeling standards. These measures are used to
stimulate innovation thinking, set criteria for supplier selection, ensure product and process quality
and compliance with sustainability norms, as well as prevent environmental, socio-economic and
internal risks.
Firms make use of diagnostic systems to develop measurable outcomes for their CSR practices
and assess their cost-effectiveness and value creation, as well as any deviations from strategic targets.
Through these systems, companies are able to internalize the relative net benefits and enable CSR
decision-making on the one hand, and communicate performance results to stakeholders on the other.
Internally, social indicators and reports should be used to provide feedback to human resources,
however, research found that not many companies adopt a social diagnostic system [45].
Interactive control systems allow companies to leverage both primary and secondary stakeholders’
(non-governmental organizations, activists, communities and suppliers) opinions in order to gain
insight into additional CSR and sustainability policies, and therefore identify further opportunities
and threats (that might undermine the organizational image) carrying an impact on CSR.
Informal controls are used to sustain the above-mentioned formal processes. Their purpose is to
project the organizational climate onto an enterprise’s internal and external stakeholders, so that they
gain awareness of how it helps to strengthen CSR culture and commitment [7,22,45].
In spite of the key role played by formal controls in signaling a company’s consideration of its
stakeholders and responsibility goals, they are not capable of emphasizing sustainability in relation to
their internal culture on their own. In other words, informal systems alone would lead to unstable
CSR management [46]. According to research, formal and informal controls are actually mutually
reinforcing and their combination can prevent any perplexities or opportunistic behavior and positively
stimulate the members of a firm to implement higher-level CSR [7,22,45].
After understanding the essential components of an MCS for sustainability, the next step would
be to analyze which types are currently in use.
Conventional, or ‘cybernetic’, MCS techniques (e.g., cost accounting, budgeting), are deemed to
be limited to the attainment of economic objectives. As they do not yield any significant improvement
in the social and environmental spheres, companies started looking for other solutions in the last
decade [22,39,47]. More contemporary management accounting techniques, such as benchmarking
and balanced scorecard (BSC), seem to have a slightly better influence, not only on sustainability, but
also on innovation and international presence as well [39].
BSCs, in particular, are quite useful in delivering the discipline that can formally make TBL
objectives operational and measurable for sustainability disclosure [44,48]. This is important because
the non-conventional data provided by TBL reports cannot rely upon official standards for reference,
unlike mainstream MCS reporting [46]. BCSs benefit, in turn, from the integration with the TBL,
as it improves their interaction with external stakeholders [49]. The sustainability balanced scorecard
(SBSC) is a successful example of the integration between formal tools and sustainability strategies [44].
Integrated tools undergo a more meaningful transformation and serve SD implementation better.
Nonetheless, in order to suitably address the social and environmental issues raised by
various stakeholders, and at the same time support the transition towards sustainability, traditional
management control has been gradually revised and more specific concepts began surfacing in
the literature [22,39,47]. Umbrella terms, such as environmental management accounting (EMA),
social accounting, sustainability accounting, and social and environmental accountability, are the most
frequent examples [46].
In terms of environmental controls, EMA was found to be positively related to process innovation,
but did not appear to have a positive impact on product innovation [39].
Social controls capture both informal and formal procedures concerned with human resource
management, but also the tacit knowledge owned and applied by the individuals in the firm to their
everyday work.
Sustainability controls are the most comprehensive type of system, in that they encompass both
environmental and social strategies, in addition to traditional economic objectives, extending the scope
of MCSs and promoting organizational learning and change. Similarly to MCSs, Sustainability Control
Systems (SCS) are a link between strategy and operations [47,48,50].
Researchers found two main barriers to the consolidation of sustainability aims into corporate
strategy. First, when SCSs are applied as a diagnostic system in place of an interactive one, managers
risk ignoring sustainability uncertainties. Second, companies might fail to connect MCS and SCS into a
unified system, since the integration should simultaneously occur on a (i) technical (sustainability and
financial data reporting), (ii) organizational (shared responsibilities and skills between management
accountants and sustainability managers, not limited to a group of specialists), and (iii) cognitive level
(shared understanding and perspective between financial and sustainability managers). Nevertheless,
a technical integration alone might partially compensate for the insufficient integration of the remaining
two dimensions [47]. In general, the successful design of sustainability policies within an organization
is only possible when traditional control systems are extended through SCSs [48]. It is also a matter of
consistency, because when an organization’s MCS fails to accept and externalize its claim to operate in
a socially responsible manner, it may lose credibility in the eyes of its stakeholders [46].
To sum up, MCSs play a pivotal role in supporting the operationalization of sustainability objectives,
as well as in improving CSR communication and formalizing a sustainability organizational culture.
3. Methodology
The systematic literature review was developed in four stages: (i) choice of keywords and inclusion
criteria, (ii) search strategy, (iii) study screening and selection, (iv) extraction and synthesis of sources.
Each step is described in detail below.
3.1. Choice of Keywords and Selection Criteria

Keywords for the literature search were chosen based on the main research question: ‘How
can SMEs in cooperative relationships leverage on sustainability-integrated MCS tools to effectively
implement CSR?’ (Figure 3). This question was divided into three main topics, namely (a) type of
relationship, (b) sustainability concepts for companies, and (c) internal control systems. For each of the
three conceptual categories, a series of associated terms were picked for the next step:
(a) Business/corporate/manufacturing group, group of companies, intercompany, intragroup,

SME network;
(b) Sustainability, sustainable management, sustainable development (goals), responsibility
ethics, corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance, corporate sustainability,
environmental social governance performance (ESG);
(c) Management control (system), management/managerial accounting, cost accounting/management,
strategic control, corporate governance, board of directors.
Subsequently, the following criteria were determined in order to select the articles for review:
(1) only articles in English, excluding grey literature (e.g., conference proceedings); (2) inclusion
of environmental, social and economic corporate sustainability, not economic sustainability alone;
(3) only studies combining both group and/or SME organizational forms with corporate sustainable
practices were included; (4) SME literature was deemed eligible only if it examined networks,
sustainability-oriented innovations or social/environmental accounting; (5) focus on the corporate-level
SD, not on a specific country’s SD (country-specific BG examples are, however, included, e.g., Korean
chaebols); (6) business cases are considered only if discussed in scientific articles, no short news
reporting/cover stories; (7) results restricted to the for-profit sector, no third-sector organizations
(e.g., cooperatives); (8) mainly the manufacturing industry is taken into account, no services; (9) not
restricted to sustainability in the production process, rather, including studies on sustainability as a
strategic asset
Sustainability 2020,for
12, corporate
x FOR PEERgovernance.
REVIEW 9 of 44
Figure
Figure 3. Map of
3. Map of the
the used
used keywords.
keywords.
3.2. Search Strategy

Subsequently, the following criteria were determined in order to select the articles for review:
(1) only articles inkeyword
A structured English,search
excluding greyperiod
(selected literature (e.g., conference
2007–2020, proceedings);
based on the comprehensive(2) inclusion of
availability
environmental,
of social was
articles on the topic) andperformed
economic in corporate
three majorsustainability, not economic
electronic databases (EBSCO, sustainability
Wiley, Web of alone; (3)
Science)
only studies
covering combining
a broad range ofboth
highgroup
impactand/or SME organizational
factor journals, as well as theforms with corporate
Sustainability Journalsustainable
separately,
practices
and throughweretheincluded; (4) SME
search engine. literature
Sources was deemed
were identified eligible
by using only string
various if it examined
combinationsnetworks,
of the
sustainability-oriented
three keyword groups (I: innovations or social/environmental
a–b–c; II: a–b; III: b–c) and applyingaccounting; (5) focus on
the above-mentioned the corporate-
inclusion criteria.
level SD, not on a specific country’s SD (country-specific BG examples are, however, included, e.g.,
3.3. Study
Korean Screening(6)
chaebols); andbusiness
Selectioncases are considered only if discussed in scientific articles, no short
newsIn reporting/cover
order to ensure thestories;
maximum (7) relevance
results restricted
to the aim oftothethe for-profit
present review,sector, no of
three levels third-sector
screening
organizations
were (e.g.,
carried out, incooperatives); (8) mainly theofmanufacturing
addition to a pre-screening industry after
the chosen databases, is taken intoa account,
which no
total of 836
services; (9) not restricted to sustainability in the production process, rather,
records were identified. The flow chart below (Figure 4) shows the study selection process. including studies on
sustainability
A total ofas114a strategic asset for
items remained corporate
based on an governance.
initial screening of titles, abstracts and keywords, and
considering some of the inclusion criteria (mainly 7, 8, 9). Additionally, some of the duplications found
3.2.
at Search
first Strategy
glance were also removed at this stage. The second level screening resulted in 102 articles being
kept Afor structured
further analysis
keyword(minus 12 duplicates).
search (selected The third2007–2020,
period step involved a more
based on thorough inspection
the comprehensive
of abstracts of
availability and available
articles full-texts.
on the Papers
topic) was were reconsidered
performed in three major through
electronic thedatabases
complete (EBSCO,
set of inclusion
Wiley,
criteria. Specifically, 13 results were removed according to the 1st criterion (five other
Web of Science) covering a broad range of high impact factor journals, as well as the Sustainability languages and
eight
Journalproceedings),
separately, one
and result
throughwasthe
removed
search considering the 2nd
engine. Sources werecriterion,
identifiedandby43using
itemsvarious
were ignored
string
based on context
combinations of appropriateness
the three keyword andgroups
the remaining criteria
(I: a–b–c; (3, 4,III:
II: a–b; 5, 6).
b–c)Atand
this applying
point, three
therelevant
above-
sources
mentioned were also added
inclusion from search engine results. This process resulted in 48 remaining articles
criteria.
(33 of the texts were further discussed in a content analysis), for the remainder of which full texts
were retrieved.
3.3. Study Screening and Selection
In order to ensure the maximum relevance to the aim of the present review, three levels of
screening were carried out, in addition to a pre-screening of the chosen databases, after which a total
of 836 records were identified. The flow chart below (Figure 4) shows the study selection process.
Figure4.4.Articles
Figure Articlesselection
selectionflow
flowchart.
chart.
Table
A total2 shows
of 114 the results
items after each
remained basedstage.
on anItinitial
is worth noting that
screening the keyword
of titles, abstractsstring combinations
and keywords, and
of (a–b–c) did not produce many results (n =
considering some of the inclusion criteria (mainly 7, 8, 9). Additionally, some of the of
group I 52). This shows that the integration MCSs and
duplications
CSR
foundis scarcely studiedwere
at first glance in thealso
literature,
removedandatinthis
particular
stage. with respect to
The second companies
level screeningaffiliated
resultedthrough
in 102
BG relationships or part of a network. Conversely, the most researched topic combination
articles being kept for further analysis (minus 12 duplicates). The third step involved a more thorough is BG/SME
and sustainability
inspection (n = 696).
of abstracts and available full-texts. Papers were reconsidered through the complete set of
inclusion criteria. Specifically, 13 results were removed according to the 1st criterion (five other
Table 2. Sources selected at each level of paper screening.
languages and eight proceedings), one result was removed considering the 2nd criterion, and 43
items were ignored EBSCObased on context
Wiley appropriateness
WOS and the remaining criteria (3, 4, 5, 6). At this
Sustainability
point,
Keywordthree relevant sources were also added from search engine results. This process resulted in 48
Tot. Incl. Tot. Incl. Tot. Incl. Tot. Incl. TOTAL INCLUDED
remaining
Combinations articles (33 of the texts were further discussed in a content analysis), for the remainder of
which full texts 21
I (SME) were retrieved.
6 3 1 0 0 4 2 28 9
I (BG) 5 2 13 0 0 0 6 0 24 2
Table 2 shows the results after each stage. It is worth noting that the keyword string
II 420 69 196 5 67 15 13 2 696 91
combinations
III of48group12I (a–b–c)
16 did0 not produce
6 0 many18 results
0 (n = 52).
88 This shows
12 that the integration
of MCSs
Total and CSR
494 is scarcely
89 228studied
6 in73the literature,
15 41 and 4 in particular
836 with
114 respect
102to companies
48
affiliated through BG relationships or part of a network. Conversely, the 1st
most researched
2nd
topic
3rd
pre-screen
combination is BG/SME and sustainability (n = 696). screen screen screen
removed 722 12 57
added 0 0 3
The bottom right corner shows the resulting items after each screening phase.
3.4. Extraction and Synthesis of Sources

The full texts of the selected articles were analyzed in depth. Pertinent information was then
broken down into comparable data and organized through a spreadsheet. Table A1 (in the Appendix A)
below summarizes the following details for each included study (the ones whose key findings will
be examined thereafter are highlighted): focus on BG or SME, authors and year of publication,
journal, country of research, scope of research (e.g., country, project), research type (conceptual,
empirical quantitative/qualitative) and method used (e.g., experiment, case analysis), topics, limitations
(with respect to the present review). Topics were further grouped into three categories, relating to
sustainability (S.), corporate governance or MCS or accounting (M.), and SD-MAC combined (SM.).
In order to ensure validity (by widening the variety of sources) [51,52], the collection of articles was
based on a triangulation of topics [53–55] (organizational forms of BG, network and SME) and methods
applied (conceptual research, empirical qualitative research, empirical quantitative research with
either analysis of reviews, business cases and experiments). Reliability and trustworthiness could be
achieved by following rigorous and systematic steps, including a thorough four-tier literature screening
and the application of pre-defined selection criteria for the retrieval of papers, making their content
consistent with the aim of this review as closely as possible [52,56]. Additionally, we assessed the
heterogeneity of sources to understand if a meta-analysis on the correlation between CSR and BGs was
possible. However, only five studies were eligible, and we therefore decided not to proceed, as such a
small number would not have been able to accurately predict the overall correlation. Subsequently,
further quantitative techniques (e.g., sensitivity and subgroup analyses, meta-regression) were also
excluded for the same reasons. Overall, given the thematic interest of the research question, the current
review can be more accurately classified as a qualitative systematic review [57,58], thus focusing more
on a conceptual analysis of the literature.
4. Findings
4.1. Descriptive Analysis: Literature Trends

The present section provides some numerical insights into the 48 studies included in the review.
To begin with, the articles retrieved were published in the period 2007–2020 (Figure 5), with a peak in
publications in 2018.
Splitting the time span under observation into three clusters of uniform cumulative periods,
it is possible to notice that there has been a constantly growing trend in publications on corporate
sustainability management in SMEs and BGs. Specifically, while the increase in SME studies has been
less than proportional, research on practices in BGs has outweighed that on SMEs since 2014–2017
(first appearing in 2010). Nevertheless, considering the entire sample, the interest in either SMEs or
BGs was balanced (n = 21 each), likewise for emerging (n = 22) and developed economies (23). Papers
specifically analyzing sustainability in BGs of SMEs were extremely rare (n = 6), and, cumulatively,
it seems that interest in them has gradually decreased.
Concerning geographical scope, developed markets have been quite a stable focus over the
three considered periods, while interest in emerging markets has cumulatively rapidly grown from
2013 onwards.
With regards to types of study, conceptual works such as literature reviews remained low over
time. In empirical studies, quantitative approaches seemed to slightly prevail over qualitative ones,
especially during the period 2017–2019. Experiments and case analyses were the most chosen designs
for quantitative empirical research (survey, in most cases, were used to collect data for experiments).
Nevertheless, while case studies were almost constantly used throughout the period in question,
hypothesis testing only began taking place in 2013. Once again, in 2018, they were subjected to a
rapid increase.
especially during the period 2017–2019. Experiments and case analyses were the most chosen designs
for quantitative empirical research (survey, in most cases, were used to collect data for experiments).
Nevertheless, while case studies were almost constantly used throughout the period in question,
hypothesis testing only began taking place in 2013. Once again, in 2018, they were subjected to a rapid
increase. 2020, 12, 7722
Sustainability 12 of 42
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Number
Numberofofpapers,
papers,organizational
organizationaland
andgeographic
geographic focus, types
focus, of approaches
types of approaches perper
year: (a)
year:
Distribution
(a) perper
Distribution year; (b)(b)
year; Distribution per
Distribution perperiod;
period;(c)(c)Distribution
Distributionper
perfocus;
focus; (d)
(d) Distribution of
Distribution of
approaches per period.
approaches per period.
Table 3 provides
provides anan overview
overviewof ofthe
thefrequency
frequencyofofjournals
journalsthat
thatpublished
published about
aboutsustainability in
sustainability
BGs
in BGsandandSMEs. As expected,
SMEs. publications
As expected, publicationsthat are
thatnormally concerned
are normally with sustainability
concerned and ethics
with sustainability and
engaged
ethics in theintopic
engaged the most.
the topic the most.TheseThesealsoalso
appeared
appeared to to
discuss
discussspecific
specifictools
tools for
for sustainability
recurrently: integrated
integrated measures
measures (social
(social and
and environmental)
environmental) were were the most common, followed by
environmental measures
measuresand,
and,totoa alesser
lesserextent, contemporary
extent, contemporary MCS MCStools, suchsuch
tools, as benchmarking,
as benchmarking,also
in itsinadapted
also version
its adapted for sustainability.
version for sustainability. AmongAmongthe most popular
the most journals
popular in the
journals insustainability and
the sustainability
ethics
and category
ethics were were
category the Journal of Business
the Journal Ethics (n
of Business Ethics (n = 6),ofJournal
= 6), Journal CleanerofProduction (n = 5),
(n = 5), Corporate
Cleaner Production
Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management (n = 3), and Sustainability (n = 3). Among
the accounting and management journals, the Journal of Small Business Management was the only one
touching on all five types of tool in one paper.
Table 3. Overview of journal frequency and tool type by journal.
Nr TCMC SuMC SoM EM Int

Journal of Business Ethics 6 X X
Journal of Cleaner Production 5 X X
Corporate Social Responsibility &
3 X X
Environmental Management
Sustainability and Sustainability 3 X X X
ethics Business Strategy& the Environment 2
(n = 25) Business Ethics: A European Review 1
Clean Technologies &Environmental Policy 1 X X
Environmental Research, Engineering&
1 X X
Management
International Journal of Business
1
Governance and Ethics
International Journal of Sustainable
1 X
Development & World Ecology
Social Responsibility Journal 1
Asian Business & Management 1
Benchmarking: An International Journal 1
Business &Economic Horizons 1
Corporate Governance: An International
1
Review
Accounting and
Corporate Governance: The International
management 1
Journal of Effective Board Performance
(n = 12)
Journal of Applied Accounting Research 1 X
Journal of Management &Governance 1 X
Journal of Marketing Communications 1
Journal of Small Business Management 1 X X X X X
Management Research Review 1
TQM Journal 1
UTCC International Journal of Business &
1
Economics
Applied Economics 1
Economics
Australian Economic History Review 1
(n = 3)
Economic Research-Ekonomska
1
Istraživanja
Emerging Markets Review 2
Finance
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 1
(n = 4)
The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics
1
and Business
Public governance Innovation: The European Journal of Social
1 X
and policy Sciences
(n = 2) Urban Affairs Review 1
Other Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 1 X
(n = 2) Tekstilve Konfeksiyon (Textile and Apparel) 1
Abbreviations: EM = environmental management; Int = integrated systems; SoM = social management; SuMC
= management control system adapted for sustainability; TCMC = Traditional and contemporary management
control system. Journals in grey featured specific MCS-CSR tools, journals in red are sustainability-specific and
present MCS-CSR different tools.
In the articles that did at least mention some sustainability management tools, the main focus
was on integrated (37%) and environmental (34%) approaches, and mainly SMA (7%) and EMS
(12%) respectively (Figure 6a,b). Social management (e.g., SIA) and MCS-sustainability-adapted tools
(e.g., sustainability BSC) were less used, while in MCSs, contemporary tools such as benchmarking/BSC
(5%), were predominantly deemed suitable for sustainability management (Figure 6a,b). Researchers
were mainly interested in reviewing previously written papers (24%) when studying sustainability
management tools, and in this case all categories were analyzed (Figure 6c). Studies concentrating
on the Italian situation were the second most frequent (22%), then came those exploring Lithuanian
context (18%). Environmental management and integrated tools prevail in both geographical focuses,
with the only difference being that social management is additionally taken into consideration for Italy.
The countries evaluated in terms of sustainability management tools are all developed economies,
except for Colombia and India.
the Italian situation were the second most frequent (22%), then came those exploring Lithuanian
context (18%). Environmental management and integrated tools prevail in both geographical focuses,
with the only difference being that social management is additionally taken into consideration for
Italy. The countries evaluated in terms of sustainability management tools are all developed
Sustainability 2020,
economies, except12, for
7722Colombia and India. 14 of 42
(b)
(a) (c)
Figure
Figure6.6.Frequency
Frequencyof tools analyzed:
of tools (a) Frequency
analyzed: of toolsofper
(a) Frequency macro-type;
tools (b) Frequency
per macro-type; of macro- of
(b) Frequency
types; (c) Frequency
macro-types; of macro-type
(c) Frequency per country
of macro-type perofcountry
research.ofAbbreviations: BSC = balanced
research. Abbreviations: = balanced
BSCscorecard;
scorecard; CSDI = composite sustainable development index; EMA = environmental management
CSDI = composite sustainable development index; EMA = environmental management accounting;
EMS
accounting; EMS = environmental
= environmental management system; ESA = environmental
management system; ESAand = environmental
sustainability accounting; MCS
and sustainability
=accounting;
management MCS = management
control system; MEC = monitoring
control system; MEC = monitoring and
and environmental control; MFCA = material
environmental control;flow
MFCA
= material
cost accounting;
flow SAFE = sustainability
cost accounting; = sustainability
SAFEassessment for enterprises;
assessment SER
for=enterprises; SER = social and
social and environmental
reporting; SERS reporting;
environmental SERS =
= sustainability evaluation and evaluation
sustainability reporting system; SIA = social
and reporting SIA =assessment;
impact
system; social impact
assessment; SMA = sustainability management accounting; SMS = sustainable management
SMA = sustainability management accounting; SMS = sustainable management system; SPMS =
system;
SPMS = sustainable performance management system.
sustainable performance management system.
The
Themost
mostactive
activeresearchers
researcherson
onthe
thetopic
topicofofsustainability
sustainability inin
BGsBGsand
andSMEs
SMEs were located
were in in
located Italy
Italy
(14%),
(14%),South
SouthKorea
Korea(13%),
(13%),and
andthe
theUSA
USA(11%).
(11%).However,
However, while South
while South Korea and
Korea andthethe
USAUSAwere mostly
were mostly
interested
interestedin
infinding
findingout
outabout
aboutbusiness
businessgroups,
groups,Italian
Italianstudies were
studies were mainly
mainlyfocused
focusedononSMEs
SMEsand, to to
and,
some extent, SMEs in BGs. Empirical approaches were chosen by all researching countries,
some extent, SMEs in BGs. Empirical approaches were chosen by all researching countries, except for except for
Norway. Conversely, the majority of conceptual articles were written in larger economies, with the
exception of Thailand and Turkey (Figure 7a).
Italy and South Korea (both 14%) were also primarily chosen as countries of investigation (they
often study their own internal situation), but not the USA (2%). In its place, India (14%) and Spain
(10%) gathered major attention (Figure 7b). Studies on Indian BGs were quite popular, while Spanish
circumstances were similar to Italy (focus on SMEs and partly on BGs of SMEs). In summary, South
Korea and India (APAC) are the most researched emerging markets, focusing primarily on country
data in terms of research scope (Figure 7c), while Italy and Spain are the most studied developed
economies (EMEA).
(10%) gathered major attention (Figure 7b). Studies on Indian BGs were quite popular, while Spanish
circumstances were similar to Italy (focus on SMEs and partly on BGs of SMEs). In summary, South
Korea and India (APAC) are the most researched emerging markets, focusing primarily on country
data in terms of research scope (Figure 7c), while Italy and Spain are the most studied developed
economies2020,
Sustainability (EMEA).
12, 7722 15 of 42
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure7.7.Countries
Figure Countries of
ofresearch
research and
and countries
countries investigated:
investigated: (a)
(a)Countries
Countrieswhere
whereresearch
researchtook
tookplace
place
(distribution of topics and study types); (b) Countries investigated (distribution of topics and study
(distribution of topics and study types); (b) Countries investigated (distribution of topics and study
types);(c)
types); (c)Countries
Countriesinvestigated
investigated (scope
(scope of
of research).
research).
4.2. Content Analysis

This section analyzes the content of 33 of the selected papers, covering three major topics:
(1) correlation between firm aggregations, like affiliations or networks, and CSR success; (2) overview
of sustainability management tools used by SMEs; (3) corporate sustainability processes developed in
SME networks/groups.
4.2.1. The Influence of Group Affiliation and Networks on the Intensity of CSR Implementation
The literature on the relation between BG affiliation and CSR intensity features mixed evidence,
the majority of which, however, is positive. Compared to stand-alone firms, group affiliation normally
resulted in better CSR performance overall, including environmental, social and governance ratings
(ESG—a proxy for CSR but based on more precise criteria for assessment), and for its individual social
and environmental components [5,6,59–61]. The social score seems to yield an even stronger effect
in larger groups and for such dimensions as employment, human rights, community and product
responsibility, but less in terms of safety, training and diversity. Concerning the environmental aspect,
remission and resource reduction, as well as product innovation/R&D are the factors responsible for
raising CSR intensity in BGs [59,60].
Conversely, other studies suggested that publicly listed groups in particular do not aggressively
invest in CSR activities [62], and that the higher cost of equity for disclosing nonfinancial information,
makes CSR reporting less valuable to BGs [63].
As for the positive BG–CSR correlation, this depends on the intrinsic characteristics of BGs
themselves. First of all, size (several companies in one group) and years of experience significantly
affect corporate sustainability. Specifically, larger and older BGs have a higher availability of resources,
therefore it is easier for them to invest in CSR [59,64].
Second, the support provided by BG promoters (families or controlling corporations) is equally
important. Unlike the promoters of unaffiliated firms (individuals), which are exclusively interested
in profits, promoters of BGs are genetically interlinked with society, and thus feel compelled to also
nurture socio-economic wealth [61]. Family control, counter to the belief that it is only a source of
opportunistic expropriation of CSR investments, proved to be an excellent leverage for increasing a BG’s
environmental disclosure propensity, mainly if leadership is taken by a family CEO [64]. Some authors,
however, state that it is group affiliation itself that mitigates the negative effects of family ownership
on CSR, and this is only true for non-individual family owners [5]. As for controlling companies,
they exert significant influence on subsidiaries, both if these operate in their parent company’s sector,
or in a different industry but with notable direction and coordination by the holding. This leads
affiliated firms to adopt their same sustainability practices and improves their individual corporate
social disclosure, demonstrating that a BG is indeed a united economic entity, even when it comes to
sustainability performance [65]. Peer pressure by likewise affiliated firms plays an influential role too.
As a matter of fact, if some affiliates already have previously disclosed environmental information,
the disclosure propensity among the other group members increases [64]. The external BG influence
dynamic is also to be noted. When it comes to the promotion of socio-economic wealth, BGs can truly
make a difference, as they wield considerable political power in shaping the local legal framework for
their respective societal contexts, thanks to collaborations with governments [66]. Their sustainable
business operations often inspire other BGs to transition towards CS too [6].
BGs do not primarily resort to CSR-related tools to address narrowly defined environmental
issues; they instead rely on its insurance-like effect to obtain reputational gains [59,64]. Sustaining
or restoring group reputation is particularly important during negative group-specific externalities
(e.g., dissemination of bad news among member firms) [59], as well as when members need to be
protected from inherent reputational risks emerging from embezzlement schemes potentially put
in place by family owners [64]. A good reputation particularly helps BGs to convince international
stakeholders during the internationalization process, when they have a tendency to communicate more
CSR activities [67]. The one case mentioned in which BGs do not need to worry about recognition is
when they hold the dual status of state-owned BG. These organizations are in fact naturally afforded
both legitimacy and protection from negative CSR performance, making them less compelled to
conduct sustainability-related activities to maintain their reputation [68].
Seeing that groups are composite entities, it is also interesting to understand how the adoption
of CSR within a BG influences each member firm. Researchers have distinguished between the
benefits and costs of affiliation for CSR-deploying SMEs. On the benefit side, coordination of all
group-level sustainability activities by centralized headquarters makes it possible to efficiently allocate
all internally available resources (information advantage). The fact that all group members are linked
to one another allows the headquarters to generate spillovers of accumulated expertise, reputation
capital, and group-level donations (a good proxy for social investments), improving CSR performance
homogeneously across the BG [5]. Particularly, SMEs that are part of a BG benefit in terms of improved
environmental innovation, thanks to the moderating effect of complementary assets and the sharing
of external investments and risks. Higher levels of environmental innovation, in turn, indirectly
improve labor productivity (through closer employee involvement in sustainability), making it possible
for group-affiliated SMEs to fulfil environmental regulations, at times even exceeding mandatory
requirements, but also productivity requirements moved by shareholders [6,32]. Finally, BGs mitigate
the negative relationship between CSR and financial performance, but only at low CSR levels [60].
Nonetheless, this attenuated effect between CSR and earnings management (considered a reliable metric
in the absence of a standard framework for CSR) is at times suggestive of a managerial opportunistic
behavior that uses CSR to conceal poor earnings quality [69]. This means that, in some cases, group
affiliation actually weakens the ability of unexpected accounting earnings to reflect the potential
benefits of CSR spending [70]. In general, however, the intensity of sustainability activities is positively
related to reputation, which in turn allows firms to decrease company total costs in the long term.
This happens because consumers are more supportive of socially responsible companies, and therefore
more willing to accept the premium pricing, allowing firms to generate value [71].
On the cost side of BG affiliation, resource-rich members are requested to contribute more to the
group resource endowment, subsequently having to abandon certain investment opportunities in
order to support poorly performing affiliates with their CSR [6].
Network models have also been assessed in the literature as aggregated forms of SMEs involved
in CSR-related activities (especially environmental management). The cluster approach, for example,
was found to be useful in accelerating the uptake of CSR on three levels. From the macro perspective
(network to external environment), it helps to develop a unitary brand identity which increases
negotiating power internationally (investors’ confidence) and support to policy makers in setting
environmental and social priorities/standards for the local industrial system. According to the mezo
perspective (network members interactions), clusters provide a common long-term strategic direction,
as well as knowledge shared from different businesses (supporting capacity building for members).
This fosters a multiplier effect on all partner organizations in terms of involvement and intra-network
synergies, promotes corporate learning, and enables common management, certification and audit
systems. Besides, clusters act as innovation drivers and stimulate continuous competitiveness through
peer encouragement, helping to differentiate the cluster as a whole from its direct rivals.
On a micro-level, clusters help each individual SMEs to minimize any operational barrier (lack of
financial, expertise and time resources), while at the same time legitimizing pro-active engagement
in all CSR activities, as organizations increase their ethical awareness to act on sustainability issues.
In this sense, organization capabilities (e.g., staff/management specialization, finances, knowledge
building) are optimized, technical complexities and costs associated with CSR implementation are
reduced, and due diligence and vigilance are increasingly implemented [3,72,73].
When approaching sustainability-oriented innovations (SOI), and more specifically organizational
environmental innovations (e.g., EMS), as part of an innovation-based or sustainability strategy, SMEs
tend to be more prone to spanning their boundaries through existing knowledge networks with key
actors for innovation (e.g., technical centers, research institutions, universities). In this context, three
different learning-action patterns can be observed. If the SME concentrates on resource acquisition
(grazer network pattern), learning for SOI is limited to being exploitative (new knowledge applied
commercially), because missing firm resources are simply complemented to realize pre-determined
innovation opportunities. The second type, explorer behavior, focuses on the acquisition of new ideas
and information per se, supporting the broadening of prior network experiences and the translation of
the acquired knowledge into firm processes. Finally, if a firm already has extensive prior experience
with networks and is sustainability-rooted, it will then pursue the networker pattern, which allows it
to expand its interaction ties externally for support and benchmarking, and enjoy a gradual learning
process to strengthen innovative capacity for SOI (both exploitative and exploratory learning are
feasible) [73,74].
4.2.2. Systems and Tools for Sustainability Management in SMEs

After having discussed the relationship between composite organizations and CSR, a more
in-depth focus on sustainability practices adopted by the individual organizations that are part of
groups and networks is necessary. SMEs can benefit from the implementation of a CSR strategy
in many ways. It helps them gain better access to talent, improve their employer–employee and
supplier–buyer relationships, increase brand equity (or publicity, which fosters investors’ interest
in forming joint-ventures), save on costs in the long-run (through lower energy consumption and
employee turnover), and develop a differentiation strategy. CSR can also minimize certain SME-specific
risks, such as restricted market access (strategic risk) due to not having a specific sustainability
certifications or systems required by some foreign buyers [3]. However, in order for SMEs to develop,
monitor, and actually benefit from organizational sustainability practices, in terms of performance
and innovation, CSR should be integrated into MCSs. Technically, this will allow the transmission
of rigorous planning, reporting and monitoring mechanisms from MCSs to CSR [75], while, socially
speaking, formal interactive controls will help CEOs motivate employees and translate stakeholders’
opinions into sustainability actions, through interaction with the company’s CSR policy [7].
Different levels of integration between MCSs and CSR were identified through the review.
Traditional (cost accounting, budgeting) and contemporary control types (benchmarking and BSCs)
are both used in the absence of a specific sustainability system within the organization. Nonetheless,
contemporary MCSs have a stronger moderating effect on sustainable innovations for international
performance [75]. The BSC, for instance, has been found to be quite suitable for addressing the
limit that SMEs have in focusing exclusively on financial and operational performance. BSCs in fact
supplement traditional financial measures (F) with three additional perspectives, namely delivering
value to customers (C), promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of internal business processes (P),
and learning and growth (L) for acquiring capabilities to face future challenges [75,76]. For slightly
more advanced and complex system needs, this tool can also be reconfigured to include sustainability.
This can be achieved by adding a fifth perspective, developing a sustainability BSC from scratch, or
integrating various indicators throughout the original four perspectives. The latter case includes an
initial selection of sustainability key performance indicators (KPI), performance ratings and relative
importance weights of indicators using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). The obtained
weighted performance ratings are subsequently filtered through a three-stage hierarchal fuzzy inference
system (FIS) on all four perspectives in order to obtain the final sustainability score. The FAHP and
FIS methods are especially useful in dealing with the subjectivity and vagueness of manufacturing
decision-making, translating opinions in linguistic terms into reliable crisp values. An empirical
study applied this framework and identified that the most important indicators for sustainability
performance are manufacturing cost and debt ratio (F), customer satisfaction and quality (C), material
intensity and hazardous material ratio (P), annual training hours per employee and management
commitment (L) [76]. Performance measurement systems (PMS) are the broader processes that embed
BSCs and other tools. Similar to BSCs, PMSs can be converted into sustainability-focused tools by
incorporating the relevant indicators. This way, they will assist management in defining sustainability
objectives, developing socio-economic and environmental activities, identifying critical areas, as well
as efficiently distributing scarce resources [77].
Traditional cost accounting (measuring deviations between actual production costs and strategic
objectives) [75] was adapted in a much more structured way into a stand-alone sustainability MCS tool.
The material flow cost accounting (MFCA), also known as ISO 14051, is a recognized international
standard that helps organizations both achieve economic goals and optimize material use, without
prioritizing only cost saving or waste reduction. It physically traces material flows, detailing quantities
and costs. Material losses are thus readily visible, making it easy to identify inefficient processes.
MFCA can be regarded as a managerial innovation technology and an efficiency tool for SMEs to
be flexibly applied to processes, products, an entire plant, the whole company, or even the supply
chain [78].
Under different circumstances, firms may choose to invest into a separate CSR system, and then
incorporate MCS elements into it. If SMEs decide to manage the social aspects alone, then social
management systems or social impact assessments (SIA) are typical partial models to look out for.
SIA aims to identify, evaluate, and minimize negative social outcomes, while maximizing its targeted
social mission [77,79]. Social accounting and auditing (SAA), as well as social return on investment
(SROI), are the most established SIA methods among many. SROI, in particular, is able to compare
different types of benefit values and measure outcomes rather than just tracking output [80]. In order
to demonstrate social responsibility towards workers specifically, the Occupational Health and Safety
Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18,001 and Social Accountability, on workers’ rights and workplace safety
(SA8000) certification standards can be adopted.
The other side of the coin is environmental measurement and, compared to the previously
examined systems, a much wider variety of strategies and implementations are found in the extant
literature. On the strategic side, the managerial philosophy of eco-efficiency encourages SMEs to
become more environmentally responsible, while pursuing parallel economic savings [81]. Not
all SMEs, however, are capable of carrying out good practices, since, according to a study in an
emerging market, around 60% of respondents were not even aware of SD issues. The development of
appropriate training schemes towards an internal sustainability culture [82], along with the application
of strategic and financial controls to eco-efficiency (broadly known as eco-control) [83], may solve this.
The following tools for eco-efficiency were identified in SMEs: environmental management system
(EMS), eco-mapping, and environmental performance measurement (EPM).
EMSs are based on scrupulous and recurrent cycles of planning, implementation and reviewing
(organizational environmental control), ensuring interaction among the principal organizational
functions on environmental operations, impacts and operative efficiency. They are commonly audited,
which makes them useful for addressing regulatory demands [82,84]. The most prevalent EMSs are
the ISO 14001 standard and the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). The first is directed
towards organizational improvements (efficiency, effectiveness of internal processes) and, indirectly,
at performance output. The second concentrates directly on performance outcomes, credibility and
transparency, and supports public accountability through mandatory reporting [84]. It can be applied
both for environmental certification purposes but also for any other eco-project not requiring formal
accreditation [73].
Both systems are mostly popular in Europe and rely on the maturing of internal control systems and
accounting practices. The major advantage of such standardized systems for SMEs is that they represent
an assurance mechanism for stakeholders or against regulatory pressures, providing firms with the
ability to demonstrate commitment through formalized environmental management. Networks
seemingly maximize EMS’s effects in SMEs, as they decrease the uncertainty from working with similar
businesses, trade associations or environmental bodies (experiences and costs are shared) [84].
It is worth mentioning that total quality management (TQM) is also considered an EMS by some
authors [82]. TQMs are also quite similar to quality management systems (QMS or ISO 9001), with the
exception that QMSs are standardized and audited, similarly to EMS-ISO 14001. ISO 9001 and ISO
14001 can be used complementarily (similar Plan-Do-Check-Act structures, but clauses do not directly
align), with QMS providing a systematic approach for maintaining consistent quality internally, and
ISO 14001 being used for measuring and improving environmental impact [85].
The implementation of either ISO 14001 or EMAS can be achieved using eco-mapping,
a step-by-step process to integrate environmental actions into an SME’s daily activities [86,87].
This is a do-it-yourself, visual toolbox for conducting on-site environmental reviews and internal
audits. It allows firms to prioritize problems, increase employee participation and training through
a participatory learning processes, improve communication, and form the basis of environmental
documentation [87].
Outcomes resulting from environmental management have to be evaluated in order to prompt
improvement. In this regard, EPM can be seen as the penultimate stage of an EMS or its logical
continuation. One of the measurement tools developed to systematically integrate environmental

performance into SME decision-making processes is the EPM-KOMPAS. Its most salient feature is
the capacity to recognize a firm’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the associated environmental
opportunities and threats, at an early stage [88].
At the basis of environmental performance measurement, and ultimately environmental
management, is the identification, collection, evaluation, distribution and control of data. These
activities are essential for SMEs to be able to truly transition to CS, however, a good 70% of
firms still had issues establishing environmental indicators [82]. In this review, we identify three
synonymous terms that describe the above processes: environmental management accounting (EMA),
environmental and sustainability accounting (ESA), monitoring and environmental control (MEC).
EMAs, similarly to MCSs, and support management in the accurate gathering of necessary data for
internal decision-making, and they can either be the result of integrated existing accounting systems or
environment-related accounting systems built from scratch. They collect two types of data: physical
(flows and uses of material, energy, water and waste) and monetary (environment-related earnings,
savings, and such costs as emission/waste treatment, material purchase value of non-product output
and inefficient production-materials turned into emissions/waste). The data analysis techniques
typically used in EMAs are benefit assessment, full-cost accounting, life-cycle costing and strategic
planning for environmental management [89,90].
In terms of reporting, several international bodies offered structured guidelines for self-disclosure
on environmental information, among which the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)
framework and the Greenhouse Gas accounting standards (GHG Protocol) are worth mentioning [91].
Since companies, at times, focus too much on either compliance or stakeholder engagement,
it is advisable for them to decouple environmental accounting information from environmental
communication to stakeholders, so as not to lose track of their CSR strategy [92].
Apart from separate social or environmental management, firms also have the option to directly
choose a sustainability performance system encompassing both aspects. Numerous integrated tools
were identified for SME use. The ISO 26000 international standard is a (not certified) consolidated
framework providing guidance on how to operationally articulate social responsibility into achievable
micro practices [77,91].
Sustainability management systems (SMS) equally provide guidelines and are oriented towards
handling sustainability as a package, helping to set strategic goals, design support tools and measures,
and establish strategic action plans [93]. The last step of the SMS roadmap, namely performance
analysis, can also be taken over by a stand-alone sustainability performance management systems
(SPMS). It is considered an excellent method for capturing the complexity of the TBL, as it identifies
and measures progress towards all drivers (economic, social, environmental) [77].
One of the studies reviewed additionally introduced a couple of sustainability instruments
that were specifically developed for SMEs based on empirical experiences [94]. The sustainability
assessment for enterprises (SAFE), for instance, served as a “dialog” tool to involve workers in the
sustainability change process, so that they felt motivated to contribute to it. It consists of a questionnaire
(“Is your company fit for the future?), that is administered at regular intervals and helps to identify
the strengths and weaknesses of a company along with a list of suggestions for improvement, based
on the collected information [95]. The other SME-specific tool is the sustainability evaluation and
reporting system (SERS), representing an efficient overall CSR assessment that contributes to integrating
non-financial and financial measures for improved responsiveness and stakeholder accountability.
The three elements composing this system are the sustainability reporting system (annual, social and
environmental reports), an integrated information system and sustainability KPIs [96]. Similar to
EMA, sustainability management accounting (SMA) lays the data grounds for SMS, but unlike EMA it
includes not only environmental but also social (e.g., training and education, health and safety are
very important in SMEs) and economic performance costs. SMA yields benefits in the provision of
higher quality data and indicators, which improved information consistency for better investment
appraisal (by stakeholders) of the implementing companies. However, SMA’s indicators are limited to
reflecting the company’s sustainability problematic aspects only. In order for SMA to consider the
overall corporate sustainability effectiveness and to be used for continuous improvement, an article
suggested integrating it with the composite sustainable development index (CSDI), providing a larger
set of indicators [90]. For each of the three sub-indices of CSDI (economic, environmental, and social) a
set of 5–15 indicators are chosen; they are thereafter normalized (since expressed in different units)
and finally aggregated into the CSDI. The combination between SMA and CSDI provides a strong
foundation for decision-making in SMEs through SMS [97]. In order to connect the operational SMA
level to strategic SMS, a sustainability control system (SCS) can be applied [84].
Finally, the papers under analysis presented several guidelines and tools for sustainability reporting
(also referred to as social and environmental reporting or SER) in SMEs, which are complementary
to sustainability accounting [77]. The purpose of these reports is to communicate the performance
of an organization (assessed using the previously mentioned tools) on all three TBL levels [91]. SER
is mostly voluntary and based on financial accounting; it can also be disclosed in either a printed
version for internal consultation, or as digital files on a firm’s official website [98,99]. The most relevant
SD guidelines, principles and standards are issued by international organizations: Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI); the Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project (A4S) for sustainable economy,
business models and finance; the Sustainability Accounting Standard Board’s (SASB) industry-specific
standards on corporate financial materiality; the Principles for Responsible Investments (PRI) [91];
Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS); Global Impact Investing Report System (GIIRS);
the SDG Action Manager by the UN Global Compact for developing SD goals within a firm’s micro
context, and B Impact Assessment (BIA), both hosted on B Lab’s platform. The GRI set of standards is a
globally recognized leader in the development of TBL for companies [77]. They include both universal
(GRI 101: Foundation, GRI 102: General Disclosures, and GRI 103: Management Approach) and
topic-specific standards related to the three TBL categories of disclosure. In addition to sustainability
reporting, companies can also resort to integrated reporting, in adherence to the international <IR>
framework by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). Unlike SER, IR is more of a
concise communication, illustrating the process (strategy, governance, performance) of short-, medium-
and long-term value creation through six forms of capitals (financial, material, socio-relational,
intellectual-organizational, human and natural) to all internal and external stakeholders, and therefore
is principally focused on “business sustainability” and additionally presents an organization’s SD
path. Both report types are valuable options for SMEs to disclose their path to SD, but convey different
messages. The <IR> can replace the management report only and sheds some light on the resources
(capitals) used for value creation, while the SER concentrates on the TBL aspect [91]. The other
standardized instrument for measuring sustainability impact is, as previously mentioned, the BIA.
Its comprehensive B Corp Index is a cumulative score obtained as a sum of questionnaire answers
(both qualitative and quantitative) in five impact areas, namely workers, community, environment,
customers, and governance. Companies obtaining a score of minimum 80 can apply for the B Corp
Certification, which would require them to change their legal form into a Benefit Corporation within
two years of after certification. However, apart from the certification, firms can use the Benefit Report on
their own as an goal-setting tool for decision-making, for improving their sustainability and comparing
their performance to the industry benchmark [77].
4.2.3. CSR Processes in SME Networks and Corporate Groups

In general, cooperative and community-based approaches to CSR (e.g., strategic alliances) between
multiple SMEs, like in the case of networks/clusters and BGs, lead to major advantages for the individual
firms taking part in them, not only in short-term economic terms but also from a long-term strategic
perspective, by simplifying the implementation of sustainability management policies and helping to
maintain the relative tools over time [94]. The following section analyzes how some of the sustainability
tools from the previous section were extended to an entire group or network. For this purpose, it will
be useful to understand how a BG relates to a network. Groups of companies, in fact, can be seen as
having two layers of independent networks: the inter-organizational network, represented by the
headquarters and branch offices (core BG), and the intra-organizational network, consisting of the core
company, as well as suppliers and associated firms sharing the same goal. One of the articles used these
definitions to illustrate the process of knowledge creation for the implementation of a network-wide
environmental policy for “zero emissions”. After the initial direction provided by top management in
announcing the program for environmental management, middle management organized information
flows about the new policy from branch offices to construction sites, hauliers and subcontractors in
their allocated sites. This drove the arrangement of the inter-organizational network towards stronger
ties (more qualitative information and cooperation, decreased opportunism) and density (shared norms
and reputational monitoring), as well as effective externalization and socialization of BG’s sense of CSR
value. Then, middle management emphasized the centrality of corporate headquarters by serving
as mediators between them, the construction managers of each branch office and the staff from the
environmental improvement department. This bridging led to the sharing and combination of concrete
knowledge for setting a proper path for CSR development. Next, branch office managers encouraged
hauliers and subcontractors to design, test and share information on environmental management,
externalizing the process to the entire intra-organizational network. Then, they helped supervise this
process and provided operative training, internalizing this whole approach [100].
Another study showed how the endorsement of an EMS by an intra-organizational network of
SMEs can be accomplished using a four-stage decision-making process, representing an adaptation
of the ISO 14001 certification model. For the successful implementation of an EMS within an SME
network, the network should already exist, the companies should not be competing against one another
(for longer term network survival), a network promoter or facilitator should be appointed to carry out
the development of the EMS, and it should be possible to decouple, for the innovation in question,
the activities that are common across the network from those that address specific company issues.
In the first stage, the management of each network company fully commits and accepts that it will
take 6–12 months at least to initiate the project. This period will be utilized to build trust among the
network members through discussions on projects that would appeal to all of them and, hence, can be
achieved by the network as a whole (e.g., decreased environmental impact, and subsequently firm
expenses). The second phase revolves around the implementation of those macro network activities,
including the development of an environmental policy that shows each organization’s commitment
to the environment, the identification of the attributes (of products, services and activities) with
the most impact on the environment, the awareness and understanding by all staff of any possible
legal requirements, the establishment of environmental goals as per policy, and finally the planning
of actions for achieving these targets. These first two stages follow the same structure across all
network participants, while the remaining two have to be adapted to the peculiar situation of each
firm. However, they will be carried out only if the network unanimously agrees to undergo extensive
organizational change and work towards obtaining a certification, if satisfied with the results of the
first two stages’ in-depth analysis (3rd stage). In case a unanimous consent is reached, during the
last phase each company will have to start implementing customized processes for establishing EMS
responsibilities, providing employee training, managing operations in line with the environmental
policy and objectives, developing procedures for identifying, correcting and preventing emergencies
and problems, and periodically reviewing or auditing the EMS with the aim of improving it [73].
Concerning the final EMS phase of sustainability reporting, the legitimization BGs and networks
are looking for from their CSR policy can be achieved by changing internal systems to include an
auditability process. This way accounting technologies (group-wide information systems and data
documentation, accounting instructions, books closing and internal controls), which are deemed
an exemplary, authoritative and objective approach when it comes to reputation (towards external
stakeholders, assurance providers or the top management), ensure that SER becomes an ongoing
practice. The three essential elements of this integrated system, according to one of the studies,
are data capture (information on data flow from site to group level/consolidation), data quality and
reliability (at site accounting accuracy; its expertise can be translated to nonfinancial data), and a specific
group social and environmental quality (SEQ) function (responsible for group level sustainability
data preparation and external reporting). This function, with the auxiliary involvement of Group
Finance and Group IT, sets BG’s priorities on SER, so that business sites and areas give it due attention.
The empirical research in question documented the stages a group went through on order to make
SER auditable and functional across the entire core BG. The first step is to set up a proper information
system, either an internally developed one or an external software solution, even one connected to
an existing financial reporting platform. In the second stage, the Goup Finance is to develop specific
accounting instructions to make data registration, processing and the whole SER reporting system
auditable and aligned with the financial. These uniform instructions, however, may be considered
unfit for some local contexts and not acknowledged by local SEQ staff (e.g., engineers). In these cases,
despite the risk of losing the objectivity provided by accounting, Group SEQ opted to not control the
intervention so meticulously, allowing local staff to follow their own locally adapted strategies to a
certain extent. Third, social and environmental indicators, that are normally disconnected, should then
be linked through financial accounting systems (based on double-entry bookkeeping, hence reliable)
to ensure that data are reliable. Once defined, these indicators are disclosed in a CSR report on the
website, as well as to governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, if required. Fourth,
it should be arranged for Group SEQ to assist with the collection of data at sites and registration
in the information system, and a standard for data documentation should be internally developed.
Once these prerequisites are implemented, the internal control system, ensuring data completeness,
can finally be established. For this purpose, the BG should experiment with MCSs, so as to find the most
fitting system for its SER strategy. Controls can either be automated, thus built into the information
system, or manual, meaning that the SEQ of the BG would perform some analytical procedures (e.g.,
performance review) to identify deviations between prior- and present-year data, then comment on
the differences above 20% only. Alternatively, the BG may trust the assurance provider to design the
control system [98].
CSR does not necessarily have to be limited to the group or network only. In fact, SME networks
have great potential for increasing positive SD outcomes, especially when SMEs are embedded in
the local territory. SMEs in these ethical territorial networks lead through their best practices and a
collective vision the diffusion of CSR across the territory, known as territorial social responsibility
(TSR). The focus of TSR is not only on shareholders but especially on the community (citizens and
territory), which serves as both the main judge and beneficiary of socially responsible activities, such as
improvements in the local quality of life and integration of economic events with socio-environmental
considerations. TSR focuses on such important dimensions as participation, territorial identity, and the
cultural CSR aspect (strategic and operative) for SD [101].
An example of this territorial approach to CSR is given by the implementation of the EMAS
scheme, available to stand-alone firms, by a cluster (e.g., industrial districts, technological parks, other
territorial agglomerations). This integration of environmental management at cluster level builds upon
the co-opetition (cooperation among competing entities) between private companies and stakeholders
located close to one another, as well as local governments. This can be considered a policy tool with a
twofold purpose. On one hand, there is the pursuit of a more effective environmental performance
within a certain jurisdiction (macro level), due to the narrowly focused traditional policy tools. On the
other, environment managerial priorities that arise in SMEs also need to be taken into consideration
(micro level), since they are simultaneously competing on a global issue for an opportunity to be
globally recognized, despite the resource constraints. The transmission mechanism to the territorial
area is guaranteed by the fact that SMEs in a cluster share suppliers, clients and similar environmental
issues, and comply with the same legislations, thus making it possible for them to jointly come to
solutions regarding their common territory, and exploit the resulting economies of scale (e.g., water
purification systems used by all firms). The EMAS cluster approach, which is similar to the regional
environmental management systems (REMS), is used for consolidating territorial, industrial and
environmental policies in industrial clusters [72].
5. Discussion
The aim of the present review was to identify the processes through which aggregated companies
(mainly in the form of SME networks and groups), which have a dominant influence in the global
market, are able to effectively introduce and manage corporate sustainability practices, through
integration with their control and management systems.
Insights were gathered on three different levels. On a general level, we tried to understand how
corporate sustainability affects the performance of BGs and networks, at the same time investigating the
geographic scope of each cooperative organizational type engaged in CSR. Then, through an overview
of CSR tools used by SMEs, we identified the possible combinations of integrated MCS-sustainability
systems and processes that could be potentially extended to firms engaged in a cooperative relationship.
The third and last step consisted of finding out how to implement some of the previously evaluated
systems as a network/group-wide strategy.
Concerning research interest by countries, emerging economies from the APAC area (South
Korea and India, and to some extent China) were the main target for studies on CSR in BGs, while
the European context (Norway, Germany, Italy, Sweden) spurred curiosity about the way networks
interacted with CSR. The reasons behind such distributions of geographic focuses in the literature are
related to the specific characteristics of each area.
As for emerging markets, in some cases (e.g., India, China) they face mandatory CSR models,
making groups easily receptive of community as the purpose of their activities [66]. Additionally,
BGs in these contexts are extremely aware of the liability of emergingness (LOE) causing negative
reputational spills due to poor ethical practices and institutional voids, hence BGs frequently seek
market legitimacy through sustainability-related practices [67]. And last, groups of companies have a
prominent economic influence in emerging societies compared with other countries [67,69], which is
mainly due to their unique relational structures (e.g., conglomerates and vertical integration in Korean
chaebols) and regional business diversification across industries [32,102]. In the case of business
networks, they are mainly associated with the European scene because they are perceived as one of
the most efficient forms to pursue various strategic objectives (e.g., innovation, internationalization
and cross-border cooperation) [103], due to their proven improved access to information and dialogue
created within European projects [73]. There have indeed been many successful cases of European
networks—especially in Germany (Konvoi approach), Italy (Ambiti Produttivi Omogenei-APO
scheme), Spain, Denmark and Sweden [72]—that stimulated a growing interest by academics, policy
makers and industrial analysts [104]. The European Union also provides extensive funding for
implementing the afore-mentioned goals, which results in a high number of innovation projects led by
networks [74]. Due to their importance, business networks are starting to be recognized as proper
industrial policy instruments to be developed at European level, like in the Italian case of Business
Network Contracts [105].
In terms of relationship between organization type and CSR intensity, among the papers that
analyzed this occurrence, the majority found a positive correlation (63%). Both group affiliation
(42%) and networks (21%) were found to accelerate the uptake of sustainability practices. No clear
connection was found between country-specific contexts or listed status, as both negative and positive
outcomes were associated with the same nations (e.g., South Korea, India) and featured both listed and
non-listed firms.
A break-down of sustainability drivers revealed that the social dimension, in its employment,
community and product responsibility components, was more developed than the environmental
one. A possible explanation of this might be that such aspects can be achieved even through slight
adjustments in employee wellbeing (e.g., annual monitoring through questionnaires), and hence lower
expenses for organizations, more streamlined decision-making and managerial/directorial approval
processes, which makes them almost immediately actionable. The same goes for donations to local
institutions (e.g., cultural entities), the amount of which can be voluntarily decided based on the
financial situation of the donating company. As for product responsibility, it is usually an integral part of
the production-distribution process, because it is in a firm’s interest to best present their product through
warranties, marketing and after-sales assistance. Concerning the most impactful environmental factors,
namely R&D, and management/reduction of materials and waste, they understandably require higher
investments and a longer-term commitment, hence they are not promptly applicable, nor are the
results immediate.
In Table 4, we compare the internal variables and interaction dynamics of BGs and networks that
support the uptake of CSR, as summarized from the literature. Size and age (a1) increase resource
endowment and, consequently, CSR investments. For BGs to obtain this advantage, they should either
be larger or older (with experience incremented over time). The same also applies to networks, since
BGs are form of it. However, in this case the situation is a bit more complex because the integration has
to be done vertically across the value chain, while, in a group’s case, despite firms being also legally
independent, they are horizontally coordinated and controlled. The other internal variable is influence
by member firms (a2). While both aggregations are inspired by fellow member companies that have
adopted CSR practices first, once again the difference lies in the additional control dynamics present in
BGs. Here, group promoters (family owners and holdings) both encourage and sometimes require the
initiation of CS.
With regard to interaction with CSR, the three levels are macro (b1), that is to say, external
interactions, mezo (b2), namely interactions between members, and micro (b3), that is, the impact of
group/network structures on SME’s CSR. On a macro level, the unitary brand identity of networks
and BGs increases their international relevance, and therefore their chances of obtaining external
investments. Besides, both stuctures provide support to governments in defining legal frameworks,
priorities and industry standards locally and internationally. Nevertheless, the type of leadership
exerted by BGs seems a bit more advanced, probably once again due to their unitary coordination
and ownership: their power is quite political-like and, given their authority, they are able to lead by
example a sustainability transition in industries or markets.
The mezo perspective suggests that strategic direction, spillover of synergies, and innovation
expertise are common characteristics shared by members of both aggregation types. The differences
are given once again by the horizontality or verticality in the respective organizational structures.
On the one hand, group-level activities are all centralized and coordinated by headquarters, and firms
are interdependent, which makes it easier to allocate resources more efficiently, as well as stimulate
labor productivity homogeneously across the group through R&D projects. The only downturn in
this case is that this homogeneity comes at the expense of those affiliates with the largest resource
stock, leading to them sacrificing their own investment opportunities as well as a larger chunk of
their endowment. Networks, on the other hand, present a looser but more varied structure, consisting
of various value chain levels. This allows them to develop separate knowledge networks for each
innovative project, through which they can then gain legitimacy for certifications or audits more
easily. Their learning-action patterns can be as simple as exploiting new knowledge commercially
and focusing on resource acquisition only, (grazer behavior), acquiring knowledge for the sake of
translating it into internal processes (explorer behavior), or it can be more complex when attempting to
strengthen external interaction ties for obtaining a benchmark for their existing innovative capacity,
exploring and exploiting ideas at the same time (network behavior). Finally, these two collaborative
organization forms yield the same positive effects in SMEs. They stimulate SMEs’ active engagement
in sustainability issues, transmitting more diligent schemes of vigilance to them, and this all helps
smaller firms to differentiate themselves from their rivals. SME-specific limits dissipate, as they are
able to attract talent, gain better access to markets by improving their capability to fulfill sustainability
requirements (by buyers, financial institutions, etc.), optimize their technical and organizational
capabilities, and potentially spread their CSR cost burden across numerous firms in the long term,
improving earning management. Finally, all networks, but especially BGs, have an interest in adopting
CSR in order to improve their brand equity, cumulatively and individually. In this sense, CS has an
insurance-like effect that protects a BG’s (international) reputation against group-specific externalities
and reputational risks coming from family ownership.
Table 4. Implications of BG and network dynamics on CSR uptake.
Variables (a) and

BG Implications for CSR Network Implications for CSR
Interaction Levels (b)
More assets available (physical, financial, Sum of different firm resources and capabilities
(a1) Size and age
intellectual) to invest in CSR in various business areas along the value chain
(a2) Internal influence by • Leverage from promoters for initiating

CSR and increasing disclosure propensity
• Promoters
• Following the example of headquarters
(higher controls)
and same level subsidiaries by adopting Ongoing competitiveness stimulated through
# Family owners already tested schemes and peer encouragement
# Controlling firms disclosing behaviors
• BG mitigates negative effects of family
• Fellow affiliates
controls on CSR
(peer pressure)
• High international negotiating power:

brand identity increases
investors’ confidence • High international negotiating power:
• Transmission of CSR leadership to the brand identity increases
(b1) Macro perspective: social setting: investors’ confidence
network/group to external • Support to policy makers in setting
# socio-economic wealth development
environment environmental and social
# stimulate other BGs towards a priorities/standards for the local
sustainability organizational change industrial system
# exert political power to improve local
sustainability laws,
requirements, standards
• Benefits • Benefits
# Common long-term strategic direction # Common long-term strategic direction
# Efficient resource allocation # Capacity building support for members:
# Spillovers of expertise, reputational expertise shared from
capital, group-level donations different businesses
# Development of environmental # Multiplier effect in terms of involvement,
innovations, in turn increasing labor intra-network synergies,
productivity for fulfilling shareholder corporate learning
and legal requirements # Enables common certification and audit
(b2) Mezo perspective: # all possible thanks to systems management
interactions between # Group firms’ interrelatedness # Sustainability-oriented innovation
network/group members # Centralized CS coordination drivers in the form of
by headquarters knowledge networks:
# Sharing of resources, external grazer behavior-resource acquisition,
investments and risks learning is only
• Costs commercially exploitative
explorer behavior—acquisition of new
(resource-rich affiliates only) knowledge, translated into processes
# Requested to contribute more assets networker behavior—strengthening of
# Having to sacrifice their own investment external interaction ties for
opportunities to help poorly support/benchmarking, exploitative and
performing members exploratory learning
• Increase in ethical awareness, due diligence and vigilance

• Promotion of active CSR engagement
• Increase brand equity
• Differentiation strategies against competitors
(b3) Micro perspective: • Removal of operational barriers (lack of financial, expertise and time resources)
specific advantages for # Better access to talent
individual SMEs # Better access to markets (fulfillment of circularity requirements by buyers)
# Optimization of organization capabilities, e.g., staff/management specialization, finances,
knowledge building, improved employer–employee and supplier–buyer relationships
# Decreasing technical complexities
# Improved CSR earnings negative relations
This initial evaluation of the advantages of BG/network CSR in SMEs, prompted us to further
discover which sustainability-control-integrated instruments were specifically used by SMEs, and could
then be potentially extended to the mezo context. The reason for including financial and managerial
accounting and controls as a requirement for sustainability systems lies in the authority and reliability
transmitted by them to sustainability management, which conversely cannot rely on rigorous and
uniform standards.
Different levels of integration between MCSs and CSR were identified throughout the review,
depending on the maturity of existing MCSs at the moment when a sustainability transition decision is
taken. In one extreme, if MAC is well-established within an organization and any prior CS system is
absent, sustainability can be “attached” to the existing system, without great modifications (traditional
and contemporary MCS). In the other extreme, sustainability management can disrupt an existing
MCS (integrated sustainability systems), by giving equal importance to CSR and MAC. The literature
suggested decoupling, to a certain extent, sustainability accounting information from sustainability
reporting; this way, it would be possible to keep track of the CS strategy, without mining the accuracy of
managerial controls. If we consider MCSs as the economic variable in TBL, we can then cross-evaluate
all the identified CSR tools according to their TBL type and degree of integration with the accounting
and control system of the company. Figure 8 illustrates such cross-integrated categories, namely
“pure” MCSs, sustainability-adapted MCSs, partial social and environmental management tools, and
ultimately integrated sustainability systems. It is of note that the higher the cross-integration level, the
higher the cost, complexity and requirements of the system. The boxes in the upper part represent
MAC systems resulting from the integration with either partial or complete sustainability systems,
while the arrows in the lower part provide an overview of sustainability-adapted MCSs. In such a
perspective, traditional cost accounting and contemporary BCS (along with the broader PMSs which
they belong to) can be considered proper integrated instruments once sustainable indicators are added
(MFCA/ISO 14051, sustainability BSC and sustainability PMS respectively).
In terms of social management tools, SIA is a partial CSR model for assessing a firm’s impact on
its community. If integrated with MAC, it will result in SAA and SROI. There are also two partial social
certification standards that can be adopted for helping improve a company’s accountability towards its
workers: OHSAS 18001 (mainly UK) and SA8000.
The largest variety of tools, however, could be attributed to the partial-environmental and
sustainability-integrated categories. The procedures for both types could be similarly reorganized and
combined into a unified logical process. For example, at the top of environmental management there is
eco-efficiency, a managerial philosophy that strategically drives the planning and control cycles of
EMS. This may take two main forms, ISO 14001 and EMAS, respectively, taking care of internal process
improvements and public accountability, through the eco-mapping toolbox for on-site reviews. EMSs
can be complemented by QMS/ISO 9001 (or its non-audited equivalent TQM) for ensuring internal
quality, and integrated by EPM (e.g., EPM-KOMPAS for SMEs), in order to prompt enhancements
through performance evaluation and support decision-making with additional information on a firm’s
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis). When EMSs are combined with
MACs, EMAs are obtained, with the function of monitoring both physical (e.g., materials, waste) and
monetary flows. Benefits assessment, full-cost accounting, life-cycle costing and strategic planning
are typical EMA instruments. Once the process of data collection and elaboration is set, the reporting
phase can be supported by such schemes as the CDSB framework and the GHG protocol. Similarly,
sustainability tools can be developed along the above-mentioned phases of management (ISO 26000,
SMS), continuous performance assessment (SPM in general, and SME-specific SAFE), data monitoring
(SMA, extending indicators on sustainability effectiveness through CSDI), and reporting (SER in
general, and SME-specific SERS). The only difference is that the SCS was proposed as an additional
control system to bridge strategy-based SMS and operational SMA. Concerning sustainability reporting,
GRI was considered the most complete tool (containing both universal and TBL-specific standards),
and BIA was also mentioned as an instrument that could either be used on its own for decision-making,
phases of management (ISO 26000, SMS), continuous performance assessment (SPM in general, and
SME-specific SAFE), data monitoring (SMA, extending indicators on sustainability effectiveness
through CSDI), and reporting (SER in general, and SME-specific SERS). The only difference is that
the SCS was proposed as an additional control system to bridge strategy-based SMS and operational
SMA. Concerning sustainability reporting, GRI was considered the most complete tool (containing
both universal and TBL-specific standards), and BIA was also mentioned as an instrument that could
either be used on its own for decision-making, goal-setting and industry sustainability
benchmarking,
goal-setting andorindustry
as a certification-leading route towardsor
sustainability benchmarking, a more “serious” change (inroute
as a certification-leading termstowards
of statutea
and
morelegal
“serious”formchange
of Benefit Corporation).
(in terms of statute andFinally, sustainability
legal form reporting was
of Benefit Corporation). compared
Finally, with
sustainability
integrated
reporting was reporting:
compared the with
latterintegrated
is more ofreporting:
a concise the
managerial reportof(not
latter is more replacing
a concise sustainability
managerial report
disclosure)
(not replacing providing detailed
sustainability information
disclosure) on the types
providing of capitals
detailed usedon
information forthe
creating
types value (business
of capitals used
sustainability),
for creating value while the former
(business delineateswhile
sustainability), the TBL
theaspects
former of a firm, either
delineates the TBLpartially
aspectsorofinaits entirety.
firm, either
All the above-mentioned
partially or in its entirety. tools areabove-mentioned
All the extensively discussed in Section
tools are 4.2.2,discussed
extensively should ainmore detailed
Section 4.2.2,
explanation
should a more be detailed
useful. explanation be useful.
Figure 8. Cross
Cross analysis
analysis of CSR–MCS and TBL integration. Abbreviations: A4S == Prince’s
of CSR–MCS Prince’s Accounting
Accounting
for Sustainability Project; BIA == BB Impact
for Sustainability Impact Assessment; CDSB ==Climate
Assessment; CDSB ClimateDisclosure
DisclosureStandards
StandardsBoard;
Board;
CSDI = composite sustainable development index; EMA= environmental management
CSDI = composite sustainable development index; EMA= environmental management accounting; accounting;
EMAS = eco-management and audit scheme; EMS = environmental management system; EPM =
environmental performance measurement; ESA = environmental and sustainability accounting; GHG
= Greenhouse Gas Protocol; GIIRS = Global Impact Investing Report System; GRI = Global Reporting
Initiative; IR = integrated reporting; IRIS = Impact Reporting and Investment Standards; ISO 26000
= Social Responsibility; MEC = monitoring and environmental control; MFCA = material flow cost
accounting; OHSAS 18001 = Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series; PMS = performance
measurement systems; PRI = Principles for Responsible Investments; QMS = quality management
system; SA8000 = Social Accountability; SAA = social accounting and auditing; SASB = Sustainability
Accounting Standard Board’s; SDGAM = Sustainable Development Goals Action Manager; SER =
sustainability and environmental reporting; SIA = social impact assessments; SMA = sustainability
management accounting; SMS = sustainability management systems; SoM = social Management;
SPMS = sustainability performance management systems; SROI social return on investment; SWOT =
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; TQM = total quality management.
Once the possible types of CSR tools applicable in the micro-SME context have been identified,
along with their sequence of use, we wanted to understand how BGs and networks introduced and
applied either of them across all member firms (mezo perspective) in a systematic fashion. The various
steps gathered from the papers in this section were then reorganized in a logical flow, in an attempt
to reconstruct a possible comprehensive process that either of the aggregated forms could apply in
their transition towards sustainability. Despite some methods being empirically found in groups and
other in clusters, this should not pose a problem for the scope of this analysis, as the focus is not on
control or ownership, and also because both forms have a similar nature of coordinating multiple and
differentiated businesses. In this review, partial environmental tools were replaced with sustainability
terms. This was acceptable because the analysis in the previous section showed the similarity of the
structures followed by both types. The logical process that resulted from the assessment of the articles
consisted of the following stages (Table 5).
First, an initial commitment to and mutual acceptance by all member firms of the objective to build
a sustainability management system. During this initial phase, (which can last up to 1 year) in order to
build reciprocal trust, fellow companies should collectively pick a project that is both interesting for
them and stimulating but achievable by the network or group.
Second, after the first year, group or network-wide preliminary activities should be set in place.
The whole process will be initiated by executives, defining a proper sustainability policy, along with the
most important CSR topics for the organization (materiality analysis). After all workers have studied
and acknowledged the related legal requirements, it will be possible to determine sustainability targets
and practical action plans to reach them. The role of middle management is fundamental in this case, as
it will serve as a bridge for information flows among the holding, subsidiaries and other participating
firms, such as suppliers.
The third step consists of an evaluation of the first two phases. If all the companies in the BG or
network feel satisfied with these early results, this will be a decisive stage for the entire network or
BG. This is because, at this point, they can opt to either undergo a serious organizational change or
abandon the idea. The decision does not necessarily have to do with a certification but can consider
the introduction of a different but complex sustainability system at aggregated firm level. In any case,
whatever the decision, it has to be unanimous.
Once firms come to a resolution, they can move on to the fourth stage, which consists of them
adopting the necessary firm-level actions towards certification or sustainability system. A prerequisite
to this phase is the identification or the creation of a network facilitating or appropriate Group SEQ
function, which should cooperate with and be supported by the entity’s Finance and IT functions.
The responsibilities and data capture process will be established at each micro level, along with data
quality and communication flow. Other firm-specific activities include employee training, management
of operations in conformity to the general sustainability policy, the development of procedures for
managing and preventing issues and emergencies. The newly applied system should be periodically
reviewed in order to improve it.
Concerning the fifth phase, before concentrating on the design of the chosen internal control
system, in order to make sustainability reporting auditable, a series of prerequisites have to be settled
down, namely, the establishment of an internal or external information system and the development of
specific accounting instructions, which will then be used to link social and environmental indicators
so that they can be disclosed on the company website. The group/network SEQ’s task will be to
assist local branches with data collection and registration at sites. In addition, they will need to
develop an internal data documentation standard for auditable reporting. Finally, the extension of
CSR through the territorial approach of TSR, not only will help to improve local community and
environmental performance in a specific jurisdiction, it will also maintain individual firm focus based
on their individual sustainability priorities. Two extremely useful tools, providing excellent support in
the diffusion of CSR to the community, are the EMAS scheme and the regional EMS.
Table 5. Process-flow for integrating sustainability initiatives within a group or network.
Stage Activity Description Actors

Trust-building through exchange of views on the
(1) Project initiation: best project
All member companies
commitment and acceptance • Appealing for each firm
• Achievable by group/network
• Top management: direction
• Sustainability policy development
• Middle management: organizing
(2) Implementation of • Materiality analysis information flows between
aggregation-wide base • Absorption of legal requirements headquarters, subsidiaries,
activities • Setting of sustainability goals and suppliers, etc.
action plans • All staff: study of
acquired information
(3) Decision to undergo ample • Undertake a certification Top management: strategic decision
change management • Build a sustainability system
• Establish responsibilities, data capture
• Identification of a
process, ensure data quality and
network facilitator
communication flows
• Training # or institution of a Group SEQ
• Operations management in conformity function for social and
(4) Firm-level actions
to policy environmental quality
• Development of procedures for issue and # supported by group/network
deviations correction, and Finance and IT, awareness of the
emergencies prevention significance of their new roles
• Periodic system review for future advances
(a) Set up the information system (internal
or external)
(b) Develop specific accounting instructions (a) Group/network IT, Finance, SEQ
(c) Link social and environmental indicators (b) Group/network Finance
(5) Make reporting auditable through above accounting system and (c) Group/network Finance, SEQ
for legitimization disclose them (d) Group/network SEQ
(d) Provide assistance in data collection and (e) Group/network SEQ
registration at sites (f) Group/network Finance, SEQ
(e) Develop a standard for data
documentation internally
(f) Establish an internal control system
Diffusion of CSR across the local territory to
(6) Transition from CSR to • Improve citizen’s quality of life
• Integrate economic events with Group/network (top management)
territorial social responsibility
(optional) socio-environmental concerns
Regional environmental management systems or
EMAS schemes are fitted policy tools to
1. Develop effective environmental
performance locally (macro level)
2. Consolidate territorial, industrial and
environmental policies in
industrial clusters
3. Simultaneously take into consideration
individual firms’ priorities (micro level)
6. Conclusions
The aim of this systematic literature review was to investigate the success behind the adoption
of a corporate sustainability and responsibility system by cooperative forms of organization, such as
corporate groups and business networks.
To begin with, an evaluation of relations and influences unveiled that both organizational forms
have positive effects on CSR development on three levels. With respect to external environment, both
yield a certain “political power” when supporting governments in setting industry environmental
standards. Concerning member–firm interactions, sustainability-oriented innovations are stimulated
by centralized coordination and control in BGs, on one hand, and vertically integrated knowledge
networks, separately developed for each innovative project, on the other. Moreover, their micro impact
on an individual SME’s CSR allows the latter to increase its reputational gains, mitigate CSR expenses,
and optimize organizational capabilities. This study also found that both partial (social, environmental)
and complete sustainability systems were susceptible to being integrated with management accounting
in SMEs, making it an almost implicit tool for proper CSR.
Finally, by gathering the empirical literature on the sustainability transition of networks and
groups, it was possible to trace a complete introduction plan that operators could resort to for initial
assistance. The six steps of this process are (1) project initiation, commitment and acceptance, (2)
implementation of network/group-wide preliminary actions, (3) decision to undergo ample change
management (e.g., certification or general sustainability transition), (4) implementation of firm-level
activities, (5) auditability of reporting for better legitimization, (6) transition from CSR to territorial
social responsibility (optional).
This paper additionally provides some practical implications to managers of companies (especially
SMEs) that are a part of groups or networks. Firstly, it gives some evidence on the specific characteristics
of aggregated firms that can place them at an advantage in pursuing a sustainability management
strategy, specifically, the size and internal influence. The size given by the plurality of companies allows
each member to leverage a wider base of resources and skills from different business areas to invest in
CSR. Concerning influence, headquarters and/or fellow members prompt each firm to engage in CSR
by example, through control or peer pressure. Other facilitating factors are experience, international
negotiating power, a common long-term strategic direction, and the removal of operational barriers.
Along with this, a summary of benefits at each level of BG/network interaction should help companies
to acknowledge the importance of CSR for business development and reputational growth. The most
impactful corporate sustainability variables are then briefly analyzed, in order to provide an idea of the
types of actions that companies can either take immediately or in the long run. Additionally, the paper
presents an overview of CSR-MCS integrated tools that are applicable in various contexts, depending on
the organization’s complexity, establishment of pre-existing internal systems, and resource availability.
Lastly, managers can follow the steps from the developed framework in order to pursue a sustainability
change management and conform all member firms to a unitary CSR system.
Despite the systematic retrieval of all relevant publications, the study may still have limitations
due to the risk of omitting applicable articles. Other limitations relate to the fact that findings may not
be generalizable because of how heterogeneous the included papers were (emerging vs. developing
markets, listed vs. non-listed firms). The current evidence base on sustainability in BGs formed by
SMEs is extremely limited (n = 6). Therefore, future research could empirically explore this particular
situation, preferably in the context of developed economies, since all the literature used for content
analysis was focused on emerging markets. Further, there is also a need for a wider research base on
case studies of business groups and networks implementing CSR across multiple firms. Finally, an
additional review on how the banking and financial sectors develop their CSR activities would be an
interesting topic to explore.
Author Contributions: O.L. conceptualized the research framework and developed the paper. F.S. supervised the
research and provided significant revision of this work. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Details of included studies.
Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

Authors, Year BG or SME Journal Scope of Analysis Topics
Research Method Study
S. sustainability
strategy M.
(Vásquez et al. Journal of Cleaner Emerging market Eql (survey): discussion of focus on SMEs in an
[82] SME Colombia, Italy organizational
2019) Production (Colombia) findings emerging country
culture SM. EMS,
eco-efficiency, MEC
Eqn (experiment):
descriptive stats, S. CSR, legal focus on publicly listed
Management Emerging market
[70] (Kim et al. 2018) BG USA, South Korea regressions (univariate environment M. companies in an emerging
Research Review (South Korea)
and multivariate), ERC country
correlations (Pearson)
Journal of Cleaner C (review): literature
[84] (Johnstone 2020) SME Sweden None M. MAC SM. EMS focus on SMEs
Production analysis
Eqn (cases analysis):
S. SD, TBL M.
(Chang, Cheng Journal of Cleaner Emerging market integrated multi-attribute focus on SMEs in an
[106] SME Taiwan generic economic
2019) Production (Taiwan) decision analysis model emerging country
variables
(FDM, GRA, RST)
S. CSS, stock of
(Ray, Ray focus on publicly listed
Journal of Business Emerging market Eqn (survey): descriptive fungible resources
[6] Chaudhuri BG India companies in an emerging
Ethics (India) stats, correlations M. generic economic
2018) country
variable (debt ratio)
S. CSR, public good focus on emerging
(Ararat et al. Journal of Business Turkey, Japan, Emerging markets C (review): literature
[66] BG M. corporate markets and public goods,
2018) Ethics Canada (mainly) analysis
citizenship no MCS analysis
focus on an emerging
Eqn (experiment):
country, certain important
(Choi et al. Journal of Business USA, Australia, Emerging market descriptive stats,
[59] BG S. CSR factors influencing CSR
2018) Ethics UAE (South Korea) regressions (multivariate),
decisions are neglected, no
correlations (bivariate)
MCS analysis
Eqn (experiment):
S. CSR M. generic
descriptive stats, focus on publicly listed
Emerging Markets Emerging market economic variables
[68] (Guo et al. 2018) BG Canada, China regressions (univariate, companies in an emerging
Review (China) (ROA, cash, leverage
multivariate), correlations country
debts/assets)
(Pearson)
One group
(Kaspersen, Journal of Business Eql (case analysis): M. auditability SM. focus on one multinational
[98] BG Denmark (UtilGroup,
Johansen 2016) Ethics discussion of findings SER group
Denmark)
Table A1. Cont.

S. CSR M.
(Agnihotri, Journal of Eqn (experiment): internationalization,
Emerging market focus on an emerging
[67] Bhattacharya BG Marketing USA, UK descriptive stats, linear generic economic
(India) country
2019) Communications regression (multiple) variables
(profitability, sales)
International
(Montecchia, Di Journal of Business Eqn (cases analysis): S. CSD M. generic focus on publicly listed
[65] BG Italy Italy
Carlo 2015) Governance and content analysis economic variables companies in one country
Ethics
Journal of S. CSR M. business
SME Eql (cases analysis): social control is only
[101] (Del Baldo 2012) Management & Italy Italy ethics SM. social
BG discussion of findings mentioned
Governance control
S. CSR M. generic
Eqn (experiment):
Economic economic variables focus on publicly listed
Kazakhstan, Emerging market descriptive stats,
[60] (Kim, Oh 2019) BG Research-Ekonomska (profitability, companies in an emerging
South Korea (India) correlations, panel
Istraživanja leverage/financial country
regression
risk, sales growth)
Corporate Eqn (experiment):
S. CSP M. generic focus on publicly listed
(Choi et al. Governance: An Australia, South Emerging market descriptive stats, linear
[69] BG economic variables companies in an emerging
2013) International Korea (South Korea) regressions (OLS, 2SLS),
(leverage, ROA) country
Review correlations
Eqn (experiment): S. CSR, financial
descriptive stats, donations M. focus on publicly listed
(Choi et al. Pacific-Basin Emerging market
[5] BG USA, South Korea regressions (logistic and generic economic companies in an emerging
2019) Finance Journal (South Korea)
linear OLS of Tobin’s Q), variables (leverage, country
correlations profitability)
S. CS, EDA M.
Corporate Social Eqn (experiment): generic economic
(Marco-Fondevila Responsibility & distributions, linear variables
[92] SME Spain Spain focus on SMEs
et al. 2018) Environmental regression (ANOVA), (profitability,
Management correlations EBITDA, turnover)
SM. ESA
S. CSR,
One group focus on one BG, too
Asian Business & Eql (case analysis): environmental
[100] (Akiyama 2010) BG Japan (Sekisui House, project-specific, no MCS
Management discussion of findings management M.
Japan) analysis
interorganizational-networks
S. ESG M. generic
Eqn (experiment):
economic variables
(Chauhan, Emerging Markets Emerging market descriptive stats, focus on an emerging
[63] BG India (cost of
Kumar 2018) Review (India) regressions (multivariate country
equity/debt/capital,
of Tobin Q), correlations
cash flow, ROA)
Table A1. Cont.

Eqn (experiment): focus on an emerging
Emerging market descriptive stats, country, environmental
[32] (Woo et al. 2014) SME BG Sustainability South Korea S. EI
(South Korea) regressions (multivariate), accounting is only
correlations mentioned
Eqn (cases analysis): S. sustainability
(Singh et al. Journal of Intelligent Emerging market focus on one SME in an
[76] SME Malaysia sustainability evaluation evaluation M. BSC
2018) Manufacturing (one SME, India) emerging country
method (FAHP, FIS) framework
focus on local programs
and policies (macro not
(Feiock et al. Urban Affairs Eqn (survey): hierarchical S. local micro), survey of local
[107] BG USA, South Korea USA
2014) Review model sustainability officials instead of
companies, no MCS
analysis
S. SOI M.
Innovation: The
Eql (cases analysis): knowledge network
[74] (Klewitz 2017) SME European Journal of Germany Germany focus on SME networks
discussion of findings SM. sustainability
Social Sciences
BSC
Eqn (experiment):
The Journal of Asian S. CSR M. generic focus on publicly listed
Emerging market descriptive stats,
[62] (Lee 2018) BG Finance, Economics South Korea economic variables companies in an emerging
(South Korea) regressions (Probit),
and Business (ROA, leverage) country
correlations (Pearson)
(von Weltzien S. CSR M. network,
Journal of Business C (review): literature
[3] Høivik, Shankar SME BG Norway Norway CBA, risk focus on SME networks
Ethics analysis
2011) management
C (presentation of an
focus on publicly listed
(Suriya, Business & Emerging market empirical method): S. CSR, SD SM.
[108] BG Thailand companies in an emerging
Sudtasan 2014) Economic Horizons (Thailand) description of an sustainable profit
country
econometric model
Corporate
Governance: The S. CSR SM.
Eql (case analysis):
[7] (Hosoda 2018) SME International Japan One SME (Japan) MCS-CSR focus on one SME
discussion of findings
Journal of Effective integration
Board Performance
S. CSR M. generic
financial value
Eqn (experiment): test of
(López-Pérez et Business Strategy & variable
[109] SME Spain Spain the causal paths through focus on SMEs
al. 2017) the Environment SM. financial and
bootstrapping
non-financial
outcomes
Emerging market
(Sulong et al. Journal of Cleaner Eql (cases analysis): focus on one SME in an
[78] SME Malaysia (one SME, SM. MFCA
2015) Production discussion of findings emerging country
Malaysia)
Table A1. Cont.

Emerging market S. sustainability focus on one BG in an
(Acar et al. Tekstil ve Eqn (case analysis):
[110] BG Turkey (one group, performance M. emerging country, no MCS
2015) Konfeksiyon TOPSIS method
Turkey) MCDM analysis
Corporate Social
(Halila 2007: Responsibility & One SME network Eql (case analysis): S. EI M. network SM.
[73] SME Sweden focus on one SME network
14001) Environmental (Sweden) discussion of findings EMS
Management
S. environmental
performance M.
(Terlaak et al. Journal of Business Emerging market Eqn (experiment): logistic focus on an emerging
[64] BG USA, South Korea generic economic
2018) Ethics (South Korea) regression, correlations country
variables (ROA,
leverage)
S. CSR M.
Eqn (experiment):
ownership SM. focus on publicly listed
Social Responsibility Emerging market descriptive stats,
[61] (Panicker 2017) BG India generic economic companies in an emerging
Journal (India) regressions (Tobit),
variable country
correlations
(profitability)
focus on public policy
(Murillo, Business Ethics: A One project Eql (case analysis):
[111] SME Spain S. CSR M. network perspective and one
Lozano 2009) European Review (Spain) discussion of findings
project, no MCS analysis
focus on SMEs, limited
Corporate Social
empirical sample, no
(Girella et al. Responsibility & Eql (cases analysis): S. SD, integrated
[91] SME Italy Italy (3 firms) specific metric described,
2019) Environmental discussion of findings reporting (GRI)
GRI economic metrics as
Management
dummy variable only
Nordic countries
(Halme Korpela Business Strategy & (Denmark, Eql (cases analysis): S. SD, responsible focus on SMEs, no MCS
[112] SME Finland
2014) the Environment Norway, Sweden, discussion of findings innovations analysis
Finland, Iceland)
Journal of Applied
SME Bulgaria, Italy, Eql (case analysis): S. CSR, ISO 26000 limited empirical sample
[113] (Corazza 2018) Accounting Italy
BG Spain discussion of findings SM. SER (6 firms in 3 EU countries)
Research
(Laurinkevičiūtė, Clean Technologies Eqn (case analysis):
One SME SM. SMS, EMA,
[90] Stasiškienė SME & Environmental Lithuania analysis of sustainability focus on one SME
(Lithuania) SMA, CSDI
2011) Policy costs, NPV, CSDI
S. CSR, CER M.
(Moore, Journal of Cleaner C (review): literature network SM. focus on SMEs, no MCS
[114] SME USA None
Manring 2009) Production analysis sustainable supply analysis
chain management
Table A1. Cont.

Eqn (experiment): S. sustainability
Benchmarking: An exploratory factor analysis, orientation M.
(Shashi et al. India, Italy, The Emerging market
[115] SME International confirmatory factor generic cost focus on SMEs
2018) Netherlands (India)
Journal analysis, strumental performance
equation modeling variable
S. CSR, SIA SM.
(Nigri, Del Eql (cases analysis): focus on SMEs, limited
[77] SME Sustainability Italy Italy SMA system, SPMS,
Baldo 2018) discussion of findings empirical sample (7)
benefit corporation
Environmental
(Laurinkevičiūtė, Eqn (case analysis):
Research, One SME SM. EMA, SMA,
[97] Stasiškienė SME Lithuania analysis of sustainability focus on one SME
Engineering & (Lithuania) CSDI
2010) costs, NPV, CSDI
Management
Eqn (experiment):
S. SOI M. traditional
descriptive stats,
(cost accounting,
psychometric properties of
(Lopez-Valeiras budget system) and a limited number of MACS
[75] SME Sustainability Spain Spain, Portugal measures, discriminant
et al. 2015) contemporary tools is considered
validity coefficient,
(balanced scorecard,
regressions (PLS),
benchmarking) MCS
correlations
(Ciasullo, Troisi Eql (case analysis): SM. sustainable
[116] SME BG TQM Journal Italy One group (Italy) focus on one BG
2013) discussion of findings value creation
International
M. industrial cluster
Journal of
(Daddi, Iraldo One SME network Eql (case analysis): policies SM. EMS,
[72] SME Sustainable Italy focus on one SME network
2016) (Italy) discussion of findings eco-management
Development &
and audit
World Ecology
Emerging market
Australian focus on one BG in an
(Dávila, Dávila (one group, Eql (case analysis):
[117] BG Economic History Colombia S. CSR emerging country, no MCS
2014) Fundación Social, discussion of findings
Review analysis
Colombia)
UTCC International focus on an emerging
(Sudthanom Emerging market Eql (cases analysis):
[118] BG Journal of Business Thailand S. CSR M. IMC country, limited CSR
2016) (Thailand) content analysis
& Economics analysis
Eqn (experiment):
S. CSR M. supply
(Stekelorum et descriptive stats, multiple
[119] SME Applied Economics France, Morocco France chain, generic focus on SMEs
al. 2019) mediation analysis,
economic variable
correlations
Table A1. Cont.

SM. generic
(benchmarking,
sustainability BSC
and reporting, QMS,
EMS, social
focus on SMEs, only brief
(Johnson, Journal of Small management
C (review): literature mention of the facilitating
[94] Schaltegger SME BG Business Germany None systems) and
analysis nature of group and
2016) Management SME-specific
network-oriented tools
(eco-mapping,
EPM-Kompas,
SAFE, SERS)
sustainability
management tools
Abbreviations: 2SLS = two-stage least squares; BSC = balanced scorecard; C = conceptual research; CBA = cost-benefit analysis; CSR = corporate social responsibility; CER = corporate
environmental responsibility; CSD = corporate social disclosure; CSDI = composite sustainable development index; CSP = corporate social performance; CSS = corporate sustainability
strategy; EDA = environmental disclosure and accountability; EI = environmental innovation; EMA = environmental management accounting; EMS = environmental management
system; Eql = empirical qualitative research; Eqn = empirical quantitative research; ERC = earnings response coefficient; ESA = environmental and sustainability accounting; ESG =
non-financial disclosure; FAHP = fuzzy analytical hierarchy process; FDM = fuzzy delphi method; FIS = fuzzy inference system; GRA = grey relational analysis; IMC = integrated marketing
communication; MAC = management accounting and control; MCDM = multi-criteria decision making; MCS = management control system; MEC = monitoring and environmental
control; MFCA = material flow cost accounting; NPV = net present value; OLS = ordinary least squares; PLS = partial least square; QMS = quality management system; RST = rough set
theory; SAFE = sustainability assessment for enterprises; SD = sustainable development; SER = social and environmental reporting; SERS = sustainability evaluation and reporting system;
SIA = social impact assessment; SMA = sustainability management accounting; SMS = sustainable management system; SOI = sustainability-oriented innovations; SPMS = sustainable
performance management system; TOPSIS = technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution. References in grey were further analyzed in their content (Section 4.2).
References
1. OECD. Enhancing the Contributions of SMEs in a Global and Digitalised Economy; OECD: Paris, France, 2017.
2. Sanders, N.R.; Wood, J.D. Foundations of Sustainable Business: Theory, Function, and Strategy, 2nd ed.; John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-1-119-57750-8.
3. von Weltzien Høivik, H.; Shankar, D. How Can SMEs in a Cluster Respond to Global Demands for Corporate
Responsibility? J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 101, 175–195. [CrossRef]
4. Camarinha-Matos, L.M.; Boucher, X.; Afsarmanesh, H. The Role of Collaborative Networks in Sustainability.
In Collaborative Networks for a Sustainable World; IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-3-642-15960-2.
5. Choi, Y.K.; Han, S.; Kwon, Y. CSR activities and internal capital markets: Evidence from Korean business
groups. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 2019, 55, 283–298. [CrossRef]
6. Ray, S.; Ray Chaudhuri, B. Business Group Affiliation and Corporate Sustainability Strategies of Firms:
An Investigation of Firms in India. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 153, 955–976. [CrossRef]
7. Hosoda, M. Management control systems and corporate social responsibility: Perspectives from a Japanese
small company. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2018, 18, 68–80. [CrossRef]
8. Arjaliès, D.-L.; Mundy, J. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy: A levers of
control perspective. Manag. Account. Res. 2013, 24, 284–300. [CrossRef]
9. Beattie, A. The 3 Pillars of Corporate Sustainability. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/
investing/100515/three-pillars-corporate-sustainability.asp#citation-1 (accessed on 23 March 2020).
10. Johnston, P.; Everard, M.; Santillo, D.; Robert, K.-H. Reclaiming the Definition of Sustainability. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. Int. 2007, 14, 60–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is Sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. [CrossRef]
12. WCED. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987; p. 383.
13. Jones, C.; Allen, S. Sustainability and Sustainable Development—What is Sustainability and What
Is Sustainable Development? Available online: https://www.circularecology.com/sustainability-and-
sustainable-development.html (accessed on 23 March 2020).
14. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci.
2019, 14, 681–695. [CrossRef]
15. Diesendorf, M. Models of sustainability and sustainable development. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2001,
1, 109–123. [CrossRef]
16. Glavič, P.; Lukman, R. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1875–1885.
[CrossRef]
17. Harris, J.M. Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Int. Soc. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 1, 1–12.
18. UN. The Sustainable Development Agenda. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
development-agenda/ (accessed on 23 March 2020).
19. Ashrafi, M.; Adams, M.; Walker, T.R.; Magnan, G.M. How corporate social responsibility can be integrated
into corporate sustainability: A theoretical review of their relationships. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018,
25, 672–682. [CrossRef]
20. Simionescu, L.N. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr) And Sustainable
Development (Sd). Intern. Audit. Risk Manag. 2015, 38, 179–190.
21. UN Global Compact; GRI. WBCSD SDG Compass—The Guide for Business Action on the SDGs.
Available online: https://sdgcompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/019104_SDG_Compass_Guide_2015.
pdf (accessed on 23 March 2020).
22. Lueg, R.; Radlach, R. Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature
review. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 158–171. [CrossRef]
23. Cazeri, G.T.; Anholon, R.; da Silva, D.; Cooper Ordoñez, R.E.; Gonçalves Quelhas, O.L.; Filho, W.L.;
de Santa-Eulalia, L.A. An assessment of the integration between corporate social responsibility practices
and management systems in Brazil aiming at sustainability in enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 746–754.
[CrossRef]
24. Pirnea, I.C.; Olaru, M.; Moisa, C. Relationship between corporate social responsibility and social sustainability.
Econ. Transdiscipl. Cogn. 2011, 14, 36–43.
25. Visser, W. The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business. J. Bus. Syst. Gov. Ethics 2010, 5.
[CrossRef]
26. Visser, W. CSR 2.0: The Evolution and Revolution of Corporate Social Responsibility. In Responsible Business:
How to Manage a CSR Strategy Successfully; Pohl, M., Tolhurst, N., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2015; pp. 311–328. ISBN 978-1-119-20615-6.
27. Behringer, K.; Szegedi, K. The Role Of CSR In Achieving Sustainable Development—Theoretical Approach.
Eur. Sci. J. 2016, 12, 10. [CrossRef]
28. Rendtorff, J.D. Sustainable Development Goals and progressive business models for economic transformation.
Local Econ. 2019, 34, 510–524. [CrossRef]
29. Schönherr, N.; Findler, F.; Martinuzzi, A. Exploring the interface of CSR and the Sustainable Development
Goals. Transnatl. Corp. 2017, 24, 33–47. [CrossRef]
30. KPMG. The Road Ahead—The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017; KPMG: Amstelveen,
The Netherlands, 2017.
31. Tajeddin, M.; Carney, M. African Business Groups: How Does Group Affiliation Improve SMEs’ Export
Intensity? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2018, 43, 1194–1222. [CrossRef]
32. Woo, C.; Chung, Y.; Chun, D.; Seo, H. Exploring the Impact of Complementary Assets on the Environmental
Performance in Manufacturing SMEs. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7412–7432. [CrossRef]
33. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. Business groups and their types. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2006, 23, 419–437. [CrossRef]
34. Lamin, A. Business Groups as Information Resource: An Investigation of Business Group Affiliation in the
Indian Software Services Industry. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 1487–1509. [CrossRef]
35. Ahmad, I.; Oláh, J.; Popp, J.; Máté, D. Does Business Group Affiliation Matter for Superior Performance?
Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3060. [CrossRef]
36. Arkalgud, A.P. Filling “Institutional Voids” in Emerging Markets. Available online: https://www.forbes.
com/sites/infosys/2011/09/20/filling-institutional-voids-in-emerging-markets/#2f123a2d65cc (accessed on
23 August 2020).
37. Wuest, T.; Thoben, K.-D. Information Management for Manufacturing SMEs. In Advances in Production
Management Systems. Value Networks: Innovation, Technologies, and Management; IFIP Advances in Information
and Communication Technology; Frick, J., Laugen, B.T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011;
Volume 384, pp. 481–488. ISBN 978-3-642-33979-0.
38. European Commission. Horizon 2020 SME Instrument; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
39. Wijethilake, C.; Munir, R.; Appuhami, R. Environmental Innovation Strategy and Organizational Performance:
Enabling and Controlling Uses of Management Control Systems. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 151, 1139–1160. [CrossRef]
40. Falkenberg, L.; Herremans, I. Ethical behaviours in organizations: Directed by the formal or informal
systems? J. Bus. Ethics 1995, 14, 133–143. [CrossRef]
41. Heales, J.; Susilo, A.; Rohde, F.H. Project Management Effectiveness: The choice—Formal or informal controls.
Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 15. [CrossRef]
42. Kanthi Herath, S. A framework for management control research. J. Mgmt Dev. 2007, 26, 895–915. [CrossRef]
43. Simons, R. Levers of Control. How Managers Use Innovative Control. Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal; Harvard
Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1995; ISBN 978-0-87584-559-3.
44. Hosoda, M.; Suzuki, K. Using Management Control Systems to Implement CSR Activities: An Empirical
Analysis of 12 Japanese Companies: Management Control Systems for Implementing CSR Activities.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 2015, 24, 628–642. [CrossRef]
45. Laguir, L.; Laguir, I.; Tchemeni, E. Implementing CSR activities through management control systems:
A formal and informal control perspective. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2019, 32, 531–555. [CrossRef]
46. Durden, C. Towards a Socially Responsible Management Control System. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2008,
21, 671–694. [CrossRef]
47. Beusch, P.; Rosén, M.; Frisk, E.; Dilla, W.N. Management Control for Sustainability: The Development of a
Fully Integrated Strategy. In Proceedings of the 2016 Management Accounting Section Meeting: Research
and Case Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 6–9 January 2016.
48. Bui, B. Management Control Systems to support Sustainability and Integrated Reporting. In Sustainability
Accounting and Integrated Reporting; De Villiers, C., Maroun, W., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
ISBN 978-1-315-10803-2.
49. Kerr, J.; Rouse, P.; De Villiers, C. Sustainability reporting integrated into management control systems.
Pac. Account. Rev. 2015, 27, 189–207. [CrossRef]
50. Johnstone, L. Theorising and conceptualising the sustainability control system for effective sustainability
management. J. Manag. Control. 2019, 30, 25–64. [CrossRef]
51. De Souza, A.C.; Costa Alexandre, N.M.; De Brito Guirardello, E. Psychometric properties in instruments
evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol. Serv. Saúde 2017, 26, 649–659. [CrossRef]
52. Golafshani, N. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Qual. Rep. 2003, 8, 1–12.
53. Loke, J. Rigour and Robustness in Research. Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/DrJenniferLoke/
rigour-robustness-in-research-16-april-2015 (accessed on 7 September 2020).
54. Olsen, W. Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Can Really Be Mixed.
Dev. Sociol. 2004, 20, 103–118.
55. Turner, D. Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Available online: https://www.quirkos.com/blog/post/
triangulation-in-qualitative-research-analysis (accessed on 7 September 2020).
56. Leung, L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2015, 4,
324–327. [CrossRef]
57. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009, 26, 91–108. [CrossRef]
58. Paul, J.; Criado, A.R. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know?
Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29. [CrossRef]
59. Choi, J.J.; Jo, H.; Kim, J.; Kim, M. Business Groups and Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2018,
153, 931–954. [CrossRef]
60. Kim, W.; Oh, S. Corporate social responsibility, business groups and financial performance: A study of listed
Indian firms. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2019, 32, 1777–1793. [CrossRef]
61. Panicker, V.S. Ownership and corporate social responsibility in Indian firms. Soc. Responsib. J. 2017, 13,
62. Lee, W. Group-Affiliated Firms and Corporate Social Responsibility Activities. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus.
2018, 5, 127–133. [CrossRef]
63. Chauhan, Y.; Kumar, S.B. Do investors value the nonfinancial disclosure in emerging markets? Emerg. Mark.
Rev. 2018, 37, 32–46. [CrossRef]
64. Terlaak, A.; Kim, S.; Roh, T. Not Good, Not Bad: The Effect of Family Control on Environmental Performance
Disclosure by Business Group Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 153, 977–996. [CrossRef]
65. Montecchia, A.; Di Carlo, E. Corporate Social Disclosure under Isomorphic Pressures: Evidence from
Business Groups. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics 2015, 10, 137–164. [CrossRef]
66. Ararat, M.; Colpan, A.M.; Matten, D. Business Groups and Corporate Responsibility for the Public Good.
J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 153, 911–929. [CrossRef]
67. Agnihotri, A.; Bhattacharya, S. Communicating CSR practices—Role of internationalization of emerging
market firms. J. Mark. Commun. 2019, 25, 365–384. [CrossRef]
68. Guo, M.; He, L.; Zhong, L. Business groups and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from China. Emerg.
Mark. Rev. 2018, 37, 83–97. [CrossRef]
69. Choi, B.; Lee, D.; Park, Y. Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance and Earnings Quality:
Evidence from Korea. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2013, 21, 447–467. [CrossRef]
70. Kim, Y.; Seol, I.; Kang, Y. A study on the earnings response coefficient (ERC) of socially responsible firms:
Legal environment and stages of corporate social responsibility. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 1010–1032.
[CrossRef]
71. Nazzaro, C.; Stanco, M.; Marotta, G. The Life Cycle of Corporate Social Responsibility in Agri-Food: Value
Creation Models. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1287. [CrossRef]
72. Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F. The effectiveness of cluster approach to improve environmental corporate performance
in an industrial district of SMEs: A case study. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2016, 23, 163–173. [CrossRef]
73. Halila, F. Networks as a means of supporting the adoption of organizational innovations in SMEs: The case
of Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) based on ISO 14001. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2007, 14, 167–181. [CrossRef]
74. Klewitz, J. Grazing, exploring and networking for sustainability-oriented innovations in learning-action
networks: An SME perspective. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2017, 30, 476–503. [CrossRef]
75. Lopez-Valeiras, E.; Gomez-Conde, J.; Naranjo-Gil, D. Sustainable Innovation, Management Accounting and
Control Systems, and International Performance. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3479–3492. [CrossRef]
76. Singh, S.; Olugu, E.U.; Musa, S.N.; Mahat, A.B. Fuzzy-Based sustainability evaluation method for
manufacturing SMEs using balanced scorecard framework. J. Intell. Manuf. 2018, 29. [CrossRef]
77. Nigri, G.; Del Baldo, M. Sustainability Reporting and Performance Measurement Systems: How do Small-
and Medium-Sized Benefit Corporations Manage Integration? Sustainability 2018, 10, 4499. [CrossRef]
78. Sulong, F.; Sulaiman, M.; Norhayati, M.A. Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) enablers and barriers:
The case of a Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1365–1374.
[CrossRef]
79. IUCN. IUCN Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)—Manual; IUCN: Grand, Switzerland, 2016.
80. Lombardo, G.; Mazzocchetti, A.; Rapallo, I.; Tayser, N.; Cincotti, S. Assessment of the Economic and Social
Impact Using SROI: An Application to Sport Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3612. [CrossRef]
81. WBCSD. Eco-Efficiency—Learning Module; WBCSD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
82. Vásquez, J.; Aguirre, S.; Fuquene-Retamoso, C.E.; Bruno, G.; Priarone, P.C.; Settineri, L. A conceptual
framework for the eco-efficiency assessment of small- and medium-sized enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
237. [CrossRef]
83. Henri, J.-F.; Journeault, M. Eco-Control: The influence of management control systems on environmental
and economic performance. Account. Organ. Soc. 2010, 35, 63–80. [CrossRef]
84. Johnstone, L. A systematic analysis of environmental management systems in SMEs: Possible research
directions from a management accounting and control stance. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244. [CrossRef]
85. Integrated Standards Compare ISO 9001 to ISO 14001—How does ISO 9001 Compare to ISO 14001? Available
online: https://integrated-standards.com/compare-management-system-structure/compare-iso-9001-iso-
14001/ (accessed on 8 May 2020).
86. Koroljova, A.; Voronova, V. Eco-Mapping as a Basis for Environmental Management Systems Integration at
Small and Medium Enterprises. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2007, 18, 542–555. [CrossRef]
87. SIA. Eco-Mapping Tool. Available online: https://www.sia-toolbox.net/solution/eco-mapping (accessed on
8 May 2020).
88. Günther, E.; Kaulich, S. The EPM-KOMPAS: An instrument to control the environmental performance in
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2005, 14, 361–371. [CrossRef]
89. IFAC. Environmental Management Accounting: International Guidance Document; International Federation of
Accountants: New York, NY, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-931949-46-0.
90. Laurinkevičiūtė, A.; Stasiškienė, Ž. SMS for decision making of SMEs. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2011, 13,
91. Girella, L.; Zambon, S.; Rossi, P. Reporting on sustainable development: A comparison of three Italian small
and medium-sized enterprises. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 981–996. [CrossRef]
92. Marco-Fondevila, M.; Moneva Abadía, J.M.; Scarpellini, S. CSR and green economy: Determinants and
correlation of firms’ sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 756–771.
[CrossRef]
93. El-Haggar, S.; Samaha, A. Sustainability Management System. In Roadmap for Global Sustainability—Rise of
the Green Communities; Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation; Springer International Publishing:
Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 49–58. ISBN 978-3-030-14583-5.
94. Johnson, M.P.; Schaltegger, S. Two Decades of Sustainability Management Tools for SMEs: How Far Have
We Come? J. Small Bus. Manag. 2016, 54, 481–505. [CrossRef]
95. Rohn, H.; Baedeker, C.; Liedtke, C. SAFE—Sustainability Assessment For Enterprises: Die Methodik. Ein
Instrument zur Unterstützung einer zukunftsfähigen Unternehmens- und Organisationsentwicklung. Wupp.
Pap. 2001, 112, 1–80.
96. Kakabadse, A.; Morsing, M. Corporate Social Responsibility: Reconciling Aspiration with Application; Palgrave
Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-230-59957-4.
97. Laurinkevičiūtė, A.; Stasiškienė, Ž. Sustainable Development Decision-Making Model for Small and Medium
Enterprises. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2010, 52, 14–24.
98. Kaspersen, M.; Johansen, T.R. Changing Social and Environmental Reporting Systems. J. Bus. Ethics 2016,
135, 731–749. [CrossRef]
99. Spence, C.; Gray, R. Social and Environmental Reporting and the Business Case; Certified Accountants Educational
Trust: London, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-1-85908-432-8.
100. Akiyama, T. CSR and inter-organisational network management of corporate groups: Case study on
environmental management of Sekisui House Corporation Group. Asian Bus. Manag. 2010, 9, 223–243.
[CrossRef]
101. Del Baldo, M. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: The experience of
some “spirited businesses”. J. Manag. Gov. 2012, 16, 1–36. [CrossRef]
102. Yiu, D.W. Business Groups are Driving Economic Growth in Emerging Economies. Available online: https://
cbk.bschool.cuhk.edu.hk/business-groups-are-driving-economic-growth-in-emerging-economies/ (accessed
on 20 June 2020).
103. Ecorys. Business Networks—Final Report; Ecorys: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.
104. do Carmo Farinha, L.M.; de Matos Ferreira, J.J.; Borges Gouveia, J.J. Innovation and Competitiveness:
A High-Tech Cluster Approach. Rom. Rev. Precis. Mech. Optics Mechatron. 2014, 45, 41–49.
105. Ecorys. Study on Business Networks; Ecorys: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
106. Chang, A.-Y.; Cheng, Y.-T. Analysis model of the sustainability development of manufacturing small and
medium- sized enterprises in Taiwan. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 458–473. [CrossRef]
107. Feiock, R.C.; Portney, K.E.; Bae, J.; Berry, J.M. Governing Local Sustainability: Agency Venues and Business
Group Access. Urban Aff. Rev. 2014, 50, 157–179. [CrossRef]
108. Suriya, K.; Sudtasan, T. How to estimate the model of sustainable profit and corporate social responsibility.
Bus. Econ. Horiz. 2014, 9, 1–7. [CrossRef]
109. López-Pérez, M.E.; Melero, I.; Sese, F.J. Management for Sustainable Development and Its Impact on Firm
Value in the SME Context: Does Size Matter? Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2017, 26, 985–999. [CrossRef]
110. Acar, E.; Kiliç, M.; Güner, M. Measurement of sustainability performance in textile industry by using a
multi-criteria decision making method. Tekst. Konfeksiyon 2015, 25, 3–9.
111. Murillo, D.; Lozano, J.M. Pushing forward SME CSR through a network: An account from the Catalan model.
Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2009, 18, 7–20. [CrossRef]
112. Halme, M.; Korpela, M. Responsible Innovation toward Sustainable Development in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises: A Resource Perspective. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2014, 23, 547–566. [CrossRef]
113. Corazza, L. Small business social responsibility: The CSR4UTOOL web application. J. Appl. Account. Res.
2018, 19, 383–400. [CrossRef]
114. Moore, S.B.; Manring, S.L. Strategy development in small and medium sized enterprises for sustainability
and increased value creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 276–282. [CrossRef]
115. Shashi, K.; Cerchione, R.; Centobelli, P.; Shabani, A. Sustainability orientation, supply chain integration, and
SMEs performance: A causal analysis. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 3679–3701. [CrossRef]
116. Ciasullo, M.V.; Troisi, O. Sustainable value creation in SMEs: A case study. TQM J. 2013, 25, 44–61. [CrossRef]
117. Dávila, C.; Dávila, J.C. The Evolution of a Socially Committed Business Group in Colombia. Aust. Econ. Hist.
Rev. 2014, 54, 164–182. [CrossRef]
118. Sudthanom, T. The relationship between integrated marketing communication and marketing
communications’ objectives of marketing directors in Thailand. UTCC Int. J. Bus. Econ. 2016, 8, 173–186.
119. Stekelorum, R.; Laguir, I.; Elbaz, J. Transmission of CSR requirements in supply chains: Investigating the
multiple mediating effects of CSR activities in SMEs. Appl. Econ. 2019, 51, 4642–4657. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 12 07722 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 12 07722 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 12 07722 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7722; doi:10.3390/su12187722 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

BG’s Advantages for SMEs SMEs Advantages for BGs

2.3. Management Control Systems for Sustainability

3.1. Choice of Keywords and Selection Criteria

(a) Business/corporate/manufacturing group, group of companies, intercompany, intragroup,

3.2. Search Strategy

3.4. Extraction and Synthesis of Sources

4.1. Descriptive Analysis: Literature Trends

Table 3. Overview of journal frequency and tool type by journal.

Nr TCMC SuMC SoM EM Int

4.2. Content Analysis

4.2.2. Systems and Tools for Sustainability Management in SMEs

continuation. One of the measurement tools developed to systematically integrate environmental

4.2.3. CSR Processes in SME Networks and Corporate Groups

Table 4. Implications of BG and network dynamics on CSR uptake.

Variables (a) and

(a2) Internal influence by • Leverage from promoters for initiating

• High international negotiating power:

• Increase in ethical awareness, due diligence and vigilance

Table 5. Process-flow for integrating sustainability initiatives within a group or network.

Stage Activity Description Actors

Table A1. Details of included studies.

Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

Table A1. Cont.

Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

Table A1. Cont.

Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

Table A1. Cont.

Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

Table A1. Cont.

Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

Table A1. Cont.

Country of Research Type and Limitations for Own

You might also like